max wrote:
....
A brief look US DOE, DOT and EIA (energy information administration)
yields the _inescapable_ conclusion that we could, with ease, without
meaningfully impeding anyone's lifestyle or American Freedom, virtually
eliminate the need for virtually all of our _automobile_ related oil
imports literally by monday (today is friday, for the archive readers).
By Monday.
....

That's simply dreaming...gasoline consumption will decrease when the
marginal cost becomes high enough to modify consumers' usage choices and
other choices. It will make a major impact on lifestyle.

"max" wrote in message
...


The problem is most of our petroleum imports go to motor fuel and,
Americans simply refuse (other than a tithe of weirdos "Liberals" and
other assorted Unamerican dweebs) to make any of the necessary
behavioral, purchasing or use pattern changes necessary to reduce our
fuel consumption.

It's even worse than you think. I used to think the refusal to change was a
matter of laziness, until I asked someone why he was considering a huge
pickup truck, even though he towed nothing and hauled nothing - no need for
such a vehicle. His response was that this was America and he had a
god-given right to own anything he wanted.

Oh boy.....

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:


"Gonzo" wrote in message
. ..
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Mormon wrote:

Time to check your 72 hour kit, first aid, home storage, etc.

With lots of expensive overtime for the police, and so on.
IMO, it's also time for the US to declare victory and
leave Iraq and Afghanistan, as we did in Vietnam.

More fool you.

And even someone as stupid as you should have noticed
that 9/11 wasnt a result of Iraq and Afghanistan anyway.

God I just love 20/20 hindsight heros.

Well be sure to stick our asses in the air and wait for the next
attack so we can get your permission to go after the source next
time.

Would that work for you?

What are you, a liberal, a raghead or just a eurotrash pacifist tree
huger?

Sorry to wake you up, but the hijackers were Saudis, and they did
their job on a budget that is almost embarrassing.

Saudis. Those are people from Saudi Arabia. It doesn't matter if
Saddam might've given one or two of them a place to sleep for a couple
of nights, or handed them a slip of paper containing the name of a guy
who could give them guns. They were Saudis.

Wanna blame someone? Blame any of the last 3 presidents who have
entertained these Saudi pigs, and even hugged & kissed them. And,
remember that every time you fill up your gas tank, about a dollar
goes to the Saud family.



I believe most of the US-imported oil currently comes from Canada and
Venezuela.And Mexico.

The numbers aren't hard to find online, but who cares? If it were true, that
would eliminate Curious George's only remaining reason for our presence in
Iraq. We can't have that happening - reality shifting based on actual
physical facts.

Bottom line: it not the government, it's the American citizenry who is
to blame, by its economic behavior in the showroom and the road, and
by
the government whose actions it continues to support at election time.

Exactly. That's why the government needs to increase CAFE mileage
standards and other measures, such increasing the gasoline tax. But they
lack the political cojones to do so.

Without intervention, we'll blissfully keep driving our ridiculous
SUV's. Using the marketplace for public policy ain't gonna work.

Buck Turgidson wrote:

Bottom line: it not the government, it's the American citizenry who is
to blame, by its economic behavior in the showroom and the road, and
by
the government whose actions it continues to support at election time.

Exactly. That's why the government needs to increase CAFE mileage
standards and other measures, such increasing the gasoline tax. But they
lack the political cojones to do so.

Without intervention, we'll blissfully keep driving our ridiculous
SUV's. Using the marketplace for public policy ain't gonna work.

Actually, the marketplace for policy is about the only thing that does
work...

"It's even worse than you think. I used to think the refusal to change
was a
matter of laziness, until I asked someone why he was considering a huge

pickup truck, even though he towed nothing and hauled nothing - no need
for
such a vehicle. His response was that this was America and he had a
god-given right to own anything he wanted. "

That sounds right to me. Who are you to decide what vehicle is right
for someone else? Once you start that process, then we should go take
a look at everything people own and do. Is that ski trip to Colorado
necessary? Or should one drive to a ski resort that's closer? How
about driving the family to the beach every weekend in the summer?
Maybe we should close places like Disneyland, since not only does it
use a lot of unnecessary energy, but people burn a lot of fuel flying
there.

I especially like the limousine liberals preaching this nonsense and
telling us what kind of vehicle we should drive. Clowns like Robert
Kennedy Jr or Barbara Streisand. But it's OK for them to use energy on
a private jet to go from one gigantic house, with options like heated
garages, to the next one. What a bunch of BS.

"Exactly. That's why the government needs to increase CAFE mileage
standards and other measures, such increasing the gasoline tax. But
they
lack the political cojones to do so.

Without intervention, we'll blissfully keep driving our ridiculous
SUV's. Using the marketplace for public policy ain't gonna work. "

Yeah, great idea. Increase taxes and give the govt more of our hard
earned money to waste. Remember Jimmy Carter pouring billions into
recovering oil from shale? How much was ever produced? Not one drop!
The free market is working perfectly fine. Sales of SUV's are already
way down.

What we should be doing is exploring for more oil in any reasonable
place. And that includes ANWR, which should have been done a long time
ago, if it were not for the environmental whackos.

Don't confuse the message and the medium. I drive a 1985 Toyota, don't
even have a garage, and I've never even flown 1st class (although I was
bumped to business class on a trip to South America).

What exactly do conservatives conserve?

wrote in message
oups.com...
"It's even worse than you think. I used to think the refusal to change
was a
matter of laziness, until I asked someone why he was considering a huge

pickup truck, even though he towed nothing and hauled nothing - no need
for
such a vehicle. His response was that this was America and he had a
god-given right to own anything he wanted. "

That sounds right to me. Who are you to decide what vehicle is right
for someone else? Once you start that process, then we should go take
a look at everything people own and do. Is that ski trip to Colorado
necessary? Or should one drive to a ski resort that's closer? How
about driving the family to the beach every weekend in the summer?
Maybe we should close places like Disneyland, since not only does it
use a lot of unnecessary energy, but people burn a lot of fuel flying
there.

I especially like the limousine liberals preaching this nonsense and
telling us what kind of vehicle we should drive. Clowns like Robert
Kennedy Jr or Barbara Streisand. But it's OK for them to use energy on
a private jet to go from one gigantic house, with options like heated
garages, to the next one. What a bunch of BS.


See? Your reaction matches his. Everyone's got the right to ask questions.
But, you interpret that to mean that someone's about to be controlled. Next,
it's the black helicopters coming over the horizon, right?

The fact is that anything "geared like a truck" is inappropriate for maybe
90% of the people who buy such vehicles. I'm not saying that a carpenter,
mason or landscaper shouldn't have a pickup truck. But, it's just plain
stupid that soccer mommies are driving around in SUVs which, by design, get
hideous gas mileage. You know full well that the vast majority of people who
own them will never EVER need the mechanical advantages of those power
trains. NEVER. No towing, no off-road, nothing.

This is why used ones are lined up by the hundreds at car dealerships.

Ford Prefect in :

The problem is that much of the alternative energy options are easy for
the individual

those taxpayers

to use, but difficult for the mega corps to control
distribution. There is no money in it for them if you or I can produce
our own power, heat & fuel.

Duane Bozarth in :

That's simply dreaming...gasoline consumption will decrease when the

directly allocated

marginal cost becomes high enough to modify consumers' usage choices and
other choices. It will make a major impact on lifestyle.

"Doug Kanter" wrote:
The fact is that anything "geared like a truck" is inappropriate for maybe
90% of the people who buy such vehicles. I'm not saying that a carpenter,
mason or landscaper shouldn't have a pickup truck. But, it's just plain
stupid that soccer mommies are driving around in SUVs which, by design, get
hideous gas mileage.

There are different kinds of SUVs, many (most?) of which are built on
a car chassis. And many are smaller than sedans such as the Accord or
Camry. And some are 4 cylinder. And some are hybrids. But other
than that, they're all trucks that get lousy gas mileage.

"Doug Kanter" in
:


It's even worse than you think. I used to think the refusal to change
was a matter of laziness, until I asked someone why he was considering
a huge pickup truck, even though he towed nothing and hauled nothing -
no need for such a vehicle. His response was that this was America and
he had a god-given right to own anything he wanted.

too bad he doesn't exercise his right to use his brain
or that his parents hadn't exercised their god-given right to use tubal ligation or vasectomy

Duane Bozarth in :

Actually, the marketplace for policy is about the only thing that does
work...

yeah. lots of advertising produces "demand" for what the advertisers are selling.

wrote in message
ups.com...
"Exactly. That's why the government needs to increase CAFE mileage
standards and other measures, such increasing the gasoline tax. But
they
lack the political cojones to do so.

Without intervention, we'll blissfully keep driving our ridiculous
SUV's. Using the marketplace for public policy ain't gonna work. "

Yeah, great idea. Increase taxes and give the govt more of our hard
earned money to waste. Remember Jimmy Carter pouring billions into
recovering oil from shale? How much was ever produced? Not one drop!
The free market is working perfectly fine. Sales of SUV's are already
way down.

What we should be doing is exploring for more oil in any reasonable
place. And that includes ANWR, which should have been done a long time
ago, if it were not for the environmental whackos.


Assume I'm right about the first paragraph below, for the sake of arguement,
and because I really *am* right about it:

The vast majority of SUV owners have absolutely no need for the mechanical
design features of those cars. No towing, no off-road, and as any cop, tow
truck driver or keen observer of drivers in the snow belt will tell you, 4WD
is of no advantage to most drivers, and may actually be a hindrance. The
only possible advantage to SUVs (and I won't touch this debate) is that they
may be safer in collisions.

With me so far?

Now, here's a way for the government to get involved only slightly, and the
car makers to make MORE money on SUVs. The government should find an
incentive (bludgeoning, in other words) to get the car makers to offer the
same SUVs, but with power trains which more closely approach "normal". "Not
like a truck", in other words. The power train design is the PRIMARY reason
these vehicles get such bad mileage. Give customers the same physical, boxy
shape they want, same choice of motors, but with front wheel drive. The car
makers can reduce the price a little, but probably make more, since most
customers have no real idea how much cheaper it is to make a 2wd vehicle.
And, offer 4wd versions for people who explicitly ask for them. I don't
think many will.

"Steve" wrote in message
...
"Doug Kanter" wrote:
The fact is that anything "geared like a truck" is inappropriate for maybe
90% of the people who buy such vehicles. I'm not saying that a carpenter,
mason or landscaper shouldn't have a pickup truck. But, it's just plain
stupid that soccer mommies are driving around in SUVs which, by design,
get
hideous gas mileage.

There are different kinds of SUVs, many (most?) of which are built on
a car chassis. And many are smaller than sedans such as the Accord or
Camry. And some are 4 cylinder. And some are hybrids. But other
than that, they're all trucks that get lousy gas mileage.

OK, but look around as you drive. Are the majority of SUVs things like
RAV-4s, or mid & full size hogs? Here (upstate NY), I mostly see hogs.

In article , "Doug Kanter" wrote:

Assume I'm right about the first paragraph below, for the sake of arguement,
and because I really *am* right about it:

The vast majority of SUV owners have absolutely no need for the mechanical
design features of those cars. No towing, no off-road, and as any cop, tow
truck driver or keen observer of drivers in the snow belt will tell you, 4WD
is of no advantage to most drivers, and may actually be a hindrance. The
only possible advantage to SUVs (and I won't touch this debate) is that they
may be safer in collisions.

"may be" ????? _Of_course_ they're safer in collisions: they're bigger and
heavier. No argument with the rest of what you've stated.

With me so far?

Yep.

Now, here's a way for the government to get involved only slightly, and the
car makers to make MORE money on SUVs. The government should find an
incentive (bludgeoning, in other words) to get the car makers to offer the
same SUVs, but with power trains which more closely approach "normal". "Not
like a truck", in other words. The power train design is the PRIMARY reason
these vehicles get such bad mileage.

Utter nonsense. The bad mileage is due to the boxy shape and high weight. Put
a smaller, weaker engine in one, and it might get *worse* mileage - or it
might not move at all.

Give customers the same physical, boxy
shape they want, same choice of motors, but with front wheel drive.

Impractical. And it won't make much difference in fuel mileage, either.

The car
makers can reduce the price a little, but probably make more, since most
customers have no real idea how much cheaper it is to make a 2wd vehicle.
And, offer 4wd versions for people who explicitly ask for them. I don't
think many will.

Even more impractical.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Utter nonsense. The bad mileage is due to the boxy shape and high
weight. Put
a smaller, weaker engine in one, and it might get *worse* mileage - or
it
might not move at all.


Allow me to parse your assertion: Are you saying that the boxy shape
(i.e. aerodynamics) is the primary cause (you listed it first) of bad
gas mileage for SUVs?

Kanter's right - we shouldn't touch the safety issue. That's a whole
'nother can of worms....

In article .com,
wrote:

That sounds right to me. Who are you to decide what vehicle is right
for someone else? Once you start that process, then we should go take
a look at everything people own and do. Is that ski trip to Colorado
necessary? Or should one drive to a ski resort that's closer? How
about driving the family to the beach every weekend in the summer?
Maybe we should close places like Disneyland, since not only does it
use a lot of unnecessary energy,

And that's how politics in America works.

If someone suggests that SUV's are a bad idea and that we ought to use
less gasoline, the next thing you get is "why do you want to close
disneyland and throw me in jail for going to Steamboat??"

..max

Buck Turgidson wrote

Imagine the 300 billion (probably end up close to 600 billion)
used for alternative energy research instead of spending it
on the war, Halliburton, etc. Had we spent the money there,
we wouldn't need these sultans, emirs, ayatollahs, etc.

Bull****. You cant change the basics physics by throwing money at it.

"Buck Turgidson" wrote in message
...


Kanter's right - we shouldn't touch the safety issue. That's a whole
'nother can of worms....


Not to send this discussion off into yet another direction, but if they were
safer, then agencies like the NY State Police would be driving nothing but
SUVs. As it stands, about 1 out of 50 vehicles they drive is an SUV, and
that includes troopers in places like the Adirondacks, where the snow is
ridiculous.

Ford Prefect wrote
Buck Turgidson wrote

Imagine the 300 billion (probably end up close to 600 billion) used for
alternative energy research instead of spending it on the war, Halliburton,
etc. Had we spent the money there, we wouldn't need these sultans, emirs,
ayatollahs, etc.

The problem is that much of the alternative energy options are easy for the
individual to use, but difficult for the mega corps to control distribution.
There is no money in it for them if you or I can produce our own power, heat &
fuel.

Mindless conspiracy theory.

The reality is that it just aint practical to 'produce our own power, heat
& fuel' and that amount of money wouldnt do anything useful on that.

Even say replacing all S facing roofs with solar cells wouldnt do it.

I dunno about you dude, but my next car will be a D-8 Catepillar. Ain't
nothing safer than that. Just get in my way....I dare ya'.

Doug Kanter wrote
Ford Prefect wrote
Buck Turgidson wrote

Imagine the 300 billion (probably end up close to 600 billion) used for
alternative energy research instead of spending it on the war, Halliburton,
etc. Had we spent the money there, we wouldn't need these sultans, emirs,
ayatollahs, etc.

The problem is that much of the alternative energy options are easy for the
individual to use, but difficult for the mega corps to control distribution.
There is no money in it for them if you or I can produce our own power, heat
& fuel.

Maybe, but try as I might, I have not been able to design, build and
install any sort of thing on my roof that'll provide all my hot water
& heat, and maybe some of my electricity. (I'd settle for the first two). So,
I'm probably gonna have to buy something. It'll be expensive,

Yeah, like a lot more than the cost of the house.

and I'll probably only buy it once, or maybe twice if it wears out.

You'll have to do it more than twice if you live very long.

Hey....this sounds like the same purchasing cycle as the roof on a house. Why
can't corporations make money on this?

Basically because it would cost a hell of a lot more than
the roof currently does so they would get **** all in sales.

And you'd still have a problem with the cars.

On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, max wrote:

In article .com,
wrote:

That sounds right to me. Who are you to decide what vehicle is right
for someone else? Once you start that process, then we should go take
a look at everything people own and do. Is that ski trip to Colorado
necessary? Or should one drive to a ski resort that's closer? How
about driving the family to the beach every weekend in the summer?
Maybe we should close places like Disneyland, since not only does it
use a lot of unnecessary energy,

And that's how politics in America works.

If someone suggests that SUV's are a bad idea and that we ought to use
less gasoline, the next thing you get is "why do you want to close
disneyland and throw me in jail for going to Steamboat??"

we call that kind of sloppy thinking "the slippery slope" train of
thought.
"First they restrict our freedom to waste, next thing ya know we'll all be
in a concentration camp!"

ridiculous.

"Doug Kanter" wrote:
The fact is that anything "geared like a truck" is inappropriate for maybe
90% of the people who buy such vehicles. I'm not saying that a carpenter,
mason or landscaper shouldn't have a pickup truck. But, it's just plain
stupid that soccer mommies are driving around in SUVs which, by design,
get
hideous gas mileage.

There are different kinds of SUVs, many (most?) of which are built on
a car chassis. And many are smaller than sedans such as the Accord or
Camry. And some are 4 cylinder. And some are hybrids. But other
than that, they're all trucks that get lousy gas mileage.

OK, but look around as you drive. Are the majority of SUVs things like
RAV-4s, or mid & full size hogs? Here (upstate NY), I mostly see hogs.

I suspect that might be more true in rural areas. Most of the ones I
see in cities tend to be small or midsize Toyota or Honda or Lexus.
Of course, the hogs are much easier to see, maybe that's why they make
more of an impression...

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Steve" wrote in message
...
"Doug Kanter" wrote:
The fact is that anything "geared like a truck" is inappropriate for maybe
90% of the people who buy such vehicles. I'm not saying that a carpenter,
mason or landscaper shouldn't have a pickup truck. But, it's just plain
stupid that soccer mommies are driving around in SUVs which, by design,
get
hideous gas mileage.

There are different kinds of SUVs, many (most?) of which are built on
a car chassis. And many are smaller than sedans such as the Accord or
Camry. And some are 4 cylinder. And some are hybrids. But other
than that, they're all trucks that get lousy gas mileage.

OK, but look around as you drive. Are the majority of SUVs things like
RAV-4s, or mid & full size hogs? Here (upstate NY), I mostly see hogs.

But, as you noted just a post earlier, you're obviously seeing fewer as
"the used car lots are full" of them. An observation which should
indicate that market forces do work...

Once upon a time there was a fad for custom-outfitted "conversion vans"
that were at least as gas-hungry and much less road-worthy. They, too,
had a short time when they were near the most popular, if not the most,
new vehicle class sold. Tastes changed, as they will again.

max wrote:

In article .com,
wrote:

That sounds right to me. Who are you to decide what vehicle is right
for someone else? Once you start that process, then we should go take
a look at everything people own and do. Is that ski trip to Colorado
necessary? Or should one drive to a ski resort that's closer? How
about driving the family to the beach every weekend in the summer?
Maybe we should close places like Disneyland, since not only does it
use a lot of unnecessary energy,

And that's how politics in America works.

If someone suggests that SUV's are a bad idea and that we ought to use
less gasoline, the next thing you get is "why do you want to close
disneyland and throw me in jail for going to Steamboat??"

The way politics in the US works is that when gas prices go up to the
point at which it is a hardship, people will make choices as to which of
competing areas they wish more and put their dollars there...

" wrote:

Duane Bozarth in :

Actually, the marketplace for policy is about the only thing that does
work...

yeah. lots of advertising produces "demand" for what the advertisers are selling.

Sometimes it (advertising, that is) does, sometimes it doesn't. But it
is certain that when price goes up (enough) demand goes down...

But, as you noted just a post earlier, you're obviously seeing fewer
as
"the used car lots are full" of them. An observation which should
indicate that market forces do work...

Markets don't plan, they respond.

Doug Kanter wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
"Exactly. That's why the government needs to increase CAFE mileage
standards and other measures, such increasing the gasoline tax. But
they
lack the political cojones to do so.

Without intervention, we'll blissfully keep driving our ridiculous
SUV's. Using the marketplace for public policy ain't gonna work. "

Yeah, great idea. Increase taxes and give the govt more of our hard
earned money to waste. Remember Jimmy Carter pouring billions into
recovering oil from shale? How much was ever produced? Not one
drop! The free market is working perfectly fine. Sales of SUV's are
already way down.

What we should be doing is exploring for more oil in any reasonable
place. And that includes ANWR, which should have been done a long
time ago, if it were not for the environmental whackos.


Assume I'm right about the first paragraph below, for the sake of
arguement, and because I really *am* right about it:

The vast majority of SUV owners have absolutely no need for the
mechanical design features of those cars. No towing, no off-road, and
as any cop, tow truck driver or keen observer of drivers in the snow
belt will tell you, 4WD is of no advantage to most drivers, and may
actually be a hindrance. The only possible advantage to SUVs (and I
won't touch this debate) is that they may be safer in collisions.

With me so far?

Nope, the main reason they buy SUVs is because they FEEL safer.

The reality is that they are actually LESS safe.

Now, here's a way for the government to get involved only slightly,
and the car makers to make MORE money on SUVs. The government should find an
incentive (bludgeoning, in other words) to get the car makers to offer the
same SUVs, but with power trains which more closely approach "normal". "Not
like a truck", in other words. The power
train design is the PRIMARY reason these vehicles get such bad mileage.

Wrong. The real reason is the lousy power to weight ratio.

Give customers the same physical, boxy shape they want, same choice of motors,
but with front wheel drive.

You dont get the effect you are claiming with conventional
cars, with front wheel drive being a lot more fuel efficient
than with the conventional drive train systems.

The car makers can reduce the price a little, but probably make more, since
most customers have no real idea how much cheaper it is to make a 2wd vehicle.

Retail prices for cars has very little to do with the cost of manufacture.

And, offer 4wd versions for people who explicitly ask for them. I don't think
many will.

Sure, but you wont get any real improvement in fuel efficiency your way.

The only thing that will do anything much about the consumers
choose fuel efficient cars is to let the price of fuel increase until the
cost of the fuel has a real impact on consumer's car buying decisions.

That will also help with the other aspect of fuel use, how many
miles you choose to travel in a particular car per year etc.

Buck Turgidson wrote

Utter nonsense. The bad mileage is due to the boxy shape
and high weight. Put a smaller, weaker engine in one, and
it might get *worse* mileage - or it might not move at all.

It'll move alright, just have lousy acceleration.

Allow me to parse your assertion: Are you saying
that the boxy shape (i.e. aerodynamics) is the primary
cause (you listed it first) of bad gas mileage for SUVs?

Kanter's right - we shouldn't touch the safety issue.

No he's not, thats the reason so many choose to buy SUVs, because
the FEEL safer in them, even when they are actually less safe.

That's a whole 'nother can of worms....

But it is the reason so many buy SUVs.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...

Now, here's a way for the government to get involved only slightly, and
the
car makers to make MORE money on SUVs. The government should find an
incentive (bludgeoning, in other words) to get the car makers to offer the
same SUVs, but with power trains which more closely approach "normal".
"Not
like a truck", in other words. The power train design is the PRIMARY
reason
these vehicles get such bad mileage.

Utter nonsense. The bad mileage is due to the boxy shape and high weight.
Put
a smaller, weaker engine in one, and it might get *worse* mileage - or it
might not move at all.

I said nothing about reducing engine size. I'm talking about the 100-200 lbs
of extra parts that a 4WD vehicle needs to turn, even when 4WD is not
engaged. Take a Ford Explorer, for instance. ***BASICALLY*** the same V-8 as
a Crown Victoria. The sedan gets (in real world terms) about 25% better gas
mileage.

In addition, the automatic transmission in an SUV or pickup is programmed to
shift MUCH differently than in a roughly equivalent sedan. It takes about a
week of driving one to notice this. It's set up with the assumption that
you're hauling lots of weight, so it tends to upshift later, and especially,
to downshift sooner when you need only a small amount of acceleration. Good
for towing, or hauling a ton of bricks, but just plain stupid for the
majority of drivers who are carrying the kids to baseball.

By the way, if the absence or presence of 4WD is as insignificant as you
say, then explain this example:
Toyota Tundra, Regular cab, 4.7 liter V-8 with 2 wheel drive: 18/22 mpg
Same truck with 4wd: 15/18 mpg.

Bigger ash trays in the 4x4?



The car
makers can reduce the price a little, but probably make more, since most
customers have no real idea how much cheaper it is to make a 2wd vehicle.
And, offer 4wd versions for people who explicitly ask for them. I don't
think many will.

Even more impractical.

Are you saying that offering a selection is impractical? Dealers do it all
the time with pickup trucks, or they'd be out of the truck business insofar
as tradespeople (who use trucks for work) are concerned.

Why do you think something that is already happening is impractical?

"Steve" wrote in message
...
"Doug Kanter" wrote:
The fact is that anything "geared like a truck" is inappropriate for
maybe
90% of the people who buy such vehicles. I'm not saying that a
carpenter,
mason or landscaper shouldn't have a pickup truck. But, it's just plain
stupid that soccer mommies are driving around in SUVs which, by design,
get
hideous gas mileage.

There are different kinds of SUVs, many (most?) of which are built on
a car chassis. And many are smaller than sedans such as the Accord or
Camry. And some are 4 cylinder. And some are hybrids. But other
than that, they're all trucks that get lousy gas mileage.

OK, but look around as you drive. Are the majority of SUVs things like
RAV-4s, or mid & full size hogs? Here (upstate NY), I mostly see hogs.

I suspect that might be more true in rural areas. Most of the ones I
see in cities tend to be small or midsize Toyota or Honda or Lexus.
Of course, the hogs are much easier to see, maybe that's why they make
more of an impression...

I live in Rochester NY. There are some pretty ritzy neighborhoods here,
loaded with hog trucks. But, in other cities, where parking is ridiculous, I
can see where there would be a preponderance of smaller toys.

"Buck Turgidson" wrote in message
...
I dunno about you dude, but my next car will be a D-8 Catepillar. Ain't
nothing safer than that. Just get in my way....I dare ya'.



That would be worthwhile if only for the entertainment value. A good
operator could carefully lift an offending vehicle (old lady in an
Oldsmobile doing 32 in a 55 zone) and place it in the woods. We can but
dream.... :-)

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Buck Turgidson wrote

Utter nonsense. The bad mileage is due to the boxy shape
and high weight. Put a smaller, weaker engine in one, and
it might get *worse* mileage - or it might not move at all.

It'll move alright, just have lousy acceleration.

Allow me to parse your assertion: Are you saying
that the boxy shape (i.e. aerodynamics) is the primary
cause (you listed it first) of bad gas mileage for SUVs?

Kanter's right - we shouldn't touch the safety issue.

No he's not, thats the reason so many choose to buy SUVs, because
the FEEL safer in them, even when they are actually less safe.

I didn't comment on the truth of the safety myth. (Wait - I think I just
commented). But, in fact, I believe many drivers, females especially, think
they can substitute extra metal for developing better driving skills, and
maybe even (god forbid) PUTTING DOWN THE DAMNED CELL PHONE.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


And, offer 4wd versions for people who explicitly ask for them. I don't
think many will.

Sure, but you wont get any real improvement in fuel efficiency your way.

I don't agree, and neither do the three mechanics at the shop I've been
using for years, but it's not worth debating. It's enough to say that if you
add a hundred pounds of rotating parts to a drive train, and they do nothing
most of the time, there MUST be some effect. Maybe not as large as I
suspect, but greater than zero.



The only thing that will do anything much about the consumers
choose fuel efficient cars is to let the price of fuel increase until the
cost of the fuel has a real impact on consumer's car buying decisions.

That's the real problem, isn't it? People say "I don't mind the low gas
mileage on this thing I drive. I can afford the gas." In fact, they should
be saying "Indirectly, my son died in Iraq to protect the oil supply which
we wouldn't need (someday) if our dicks weren't so wrapped up in the kinds
of cars we drive".

Bull****. You cant change the basics physics by throwing money at it.



Dunno. Can you change radical Islamist thinking by throwing this money
into Iraq? Where is this money better spent (forget about the lives of
U.S.)? How much do we spend now on energy research?

That's the real problem, isn't it? People say "I don't mind the low
gas
mileage on this thing I drive. I can afford the gas." In fact, they
should
be saying "Indirectly, my son died in Iraq to protect the oil supply
which
we wouldn't need (someday) if our dicks weren't so wrapped up in the
kinds
of cars we drive".


I'd love to see Jenna and Barbara dodging IED's. Paul Wolfowtiz, where
are his kids? Andover?

"PaPaPeng" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 22:04:10 GMT, "Gonzo"
wrote:

Well be sure to stick our asses in the air and wait for the next attack so
we can get your permission to go after the source next time.


The US was free from problems with Muslims since its founding until
9-11. A scan of the National Geographic back issues should give a
good idea good prevailing relationships that had existed through time.
So what were the events that led to 9-11 that spawned the current
mess? Physically 9-11 did appear out of thin air. But there was a
lot happening prior to that would cause a bunch of technologically
naive Arabs to learn enough to fly a plane and crash them with deadly
effect. You cannot defeat a billion of angry muslims to prevent
another attack. So you must work out a political solution and neither
going to war or building space age defences is going to do it.

That be the case then they are committing genocide. That is not the case
though as only a few radical Islam idiots are doing it. You make it sound
like all of the ME is after us. Do some more research.