"dpb" wrote in message ...
B A R R Y wrote:
Frank Boettcher wrote:

Don't know, have not kept up with Saw Stop except for threads here
relating to whether the technology should be mandated which I am not
in favor of.

Saw Stop is made in China.

I figured so, but wasn't sure...


And is considered to be a high quality piece of equipment, further
indicating that the cheap crap coming from China is per the American
importer instructions. The good products coming from China are also per the
American importers instructions.

Robatoy wrote:
....

Same, but different, argument about bio fuels. The NET energy is
negative in some cases.

For which cases would you be postulating that, and from what sources?

Only sources I've seen that draw that conclusion rely on assumptions
that neglect portions of the cycle (such as the solar input on the input
side or the usable byproducts on the output) or from very old
sources/processes. These sources have uniformly been funded by groups
whose agenda is to discredit them (like the ads run locally in this area
against a new power plant permit on the basis of air pollution and
carbon sequestration that were actually financed by a large natural gas
producer who is lobbying for new natural gas-fired plants. Talk about a
way to waste a much more valuable resource for other purposes in order
to have a short-term gain! ).

While I'll agree wholeheartedly biofuels aren't going to be the full
answer, they will make a significant conribution, particularly during a
transition period until H or other more exotics are available.

--

Leon wrote:

Until the US can deliver equal value or better the manufacturing jobs will
go to other countries.

Indeed it can. The US based Honda and Toyota factories are growing and
successful.

Brian Henderson wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 15:44:13 GMT, John Horner
wrote:

There are very few modern Delta branded tools for which I'm willing to
pay a price premium, because it is almost all Chinese junk much like the
competition's. Why pay Delta prices for Grizzly quality?

There was a time 15-20 years ago when Delta was the top of the line
and brands like Jet were looked upon as crap. Now the situation has
reversed and you're getting the brands that were laughed at years ago
getting all the awards and traditionally respected brands losing out.

Indeed. This makes Delta/Porter-Cable's current attempt to reposition
itself as the brand of choice for "professional woodworkers" seem like
too-little, too late.

For a good laugh, check out the July 2007 press release:

http://www.deltaportercable.com/Abou...c-9f8f6a665324

These guys used to be the top of the food chain, but now are somewhere
in the middle.

J. Clarke wrote:
Bob the Tomato wrote:
....

and Curtis Mathis.

You mean the K-Mart house brand?

Curtis Mathes never manufactured themselves, afaik; rather they were
resellers of branded units from several others. The "K-Mart connection"
wasn't until very late in the demise of the company, several years after
the founder was killed (in an airline accident if memory serves)...

--

Charlie Self wrote:
On Nov 24, 11:53 am, dpb wrote:
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

...

... How many people are willing to spend $xxx more for brand D
knowing they have superior quality of a machine built by experienced
craftsmen?
Not nearly enough, apparently...

--

It's hard to buy what is not available.


Good point. Our family is trying an experiment this year. We are
having a Not Made in China Christmas. When we tell friends what we are
doing the most common response is "Good Luck!".

So far so good though. We are buying less stuff and what we are buying
is both more interesting and generally better quality than the mass of
Chinese stuff on the market. We also aren't tempted to spend much time
at Wal-Mart or Target which also has the side benefit of improving our
quality of life.

Several Lee Valley items made it onto my personal wish list . It is
also a big time saver to just throw the Harbor Freight catalog directly
into the paper recycling bin!

On Nov 27, 8:54 am, "Leon" wrote:
"Robatoy" wrote in message

...

On Nov 26, 8:29 pm, Doug Winterburn wrote:
Robatoy wrote:

Not to mention that disposing of Prius batteries, after their useful
life has passed, is going to be a nightmare.

Some claim making the Prius battery is an even bigger problem:

http://tinyurl.com/2u3xyy

That is amazing. Thanks for that input.

Same, but different, argument about bio fuels. The NET energy is
negative in some cases.

Not to mention that fuels with alcohol have a negative effect on the engine.
Alcohol attracts water and water does not settle out like it does in normal
gasoline. The higher the alcohol content, the more likely it is to get
fuel contamination.

And seeing that we're in 'not-to-mention' mode G, alcohol has no
lubricity to speak of.
The upside of that, is that it won't break down lubricating oil the
same way as petroleum based fuels can and will.
That fuel-based lubricity, imho, is one of the reasons diesels last as
long as they do. Even with higher compression levels and a much
heavier load on connecting rod and crankshaft bearings.

I still think that the train of thought of recycling entire cars is
what's really screwed up. Like badger.badger pointed out, he's kept
his Landrover running. It is a typical example of what proper
maintenance will get you if you start with a decent vehicle. It also
helps if manufacturers designed vehicles with maintenance in mind
other than the dealership jockeys who only learn to replace
parts....entire parts. Anybody out there still knows how to fix a
fuelpump or alternator?

The energy consumed by melting cars and starting over may look nice as
we 'recycle' metal, but iron isn't what we're short of, what is needed
to melt the **** that IS in short supply and all wrong.

Two cases very close to me prove every day that proper maintenance can
make a car last a long time. My daughter has put close to 400K on her
diesel Jetta, another is a friend of mine with 500K. There are million-
mile taxis in Stuttgart. So they may burn a little extra fuel, but
they aren't getting melted down and rebuilt as a matter of regular
course. Recycling engine oil works!

Off to work.

Charlie Self wrote:

FWIW, Toyota is playing with a large dually diesel now:

http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2007/11/05/069676.html

It's got an 8.0 litre, inline-six turbo diesel. G

Got to drive the then new Tundra in September of '06 at a press
conference. That one was immense, had the immense gas V8, and the
power was almost frightening. No quality comments apply, as the
interior trim and other bits were not yet set, but it pulled like a
train. They did announce, in response to questions, that a diesel
would be forthcoming in a year or two, but gave no details at all.

When General Motors divorced Isuzu recently, Toyota stepped in a bought
a minority interest in Isuzu. Isuzu is the source of GM's Duramax truck
diesel engines. Dodge gets it's from Cummins and Ford's is from
Navistar. So you see, the US truck makers only look like they have an
edge in diesel powered trucks. In reality the engines are bought from
third parties and are available in any interested enough maker.

dpb wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Bob the Tomato wrote:
...

and Curtis Mathis.

You mean the K-Mart house brand?

Curtis Mathes never manufactured themselves, afaik; rather they were
resellers of branded units from several others. The "K-Mart
connection" wasn't until very late in the demise of the company,
several years after the founder was killed (in an airline accident
if
memory serves)...

And several years before the release of the HDTV standard, let alone
any regulation making it mandatory.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Glen wrote:

Two quick questions:

1. Wasn't Most Favored Nation trading status granted to China in 1980 under
the Carter administration?
2. Under what Constitutional provision or by what specific law would this or
any other president be able to restrain trade for non-beligerant
merchandise?

No ax to grind, no desire for an argument, just questions.

Glen



Congress is empowered to pass laws regulating international trade.

From Section 8: "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations'..."

The President is the Chief Executive and thus is charged with carrying
out the provisions of said laws.

John

Frank Boettcher wrote:

Have you tried letting the vehicle set for 10-15 minutes to let the oil in
the filter drain back in to the engine? Or is there a check valve that
prevents that?

I guess their is a check valve. The vehicle sat for at least that
long on my last oil change.

Frank

It is called an anti-drainback valve and most oil filter incorporate
one. Without it your engine would take longer to build oil pressure at
start up, which is a bad thing.

Leon wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
B A R R Y wrote:
Frank Boettcher wrote:
Don't know, have not kept up with Saw Stop except for threads here
relating to whether the technology should be mandated which I am not
in favor of.
Saw Stop is made in China.
I figured so, but wasn't sure...


And is considered to be a high quality piece of equipment, further
indicating that the cheap crap coming from China is per the American
importer instructions. The good products coming from China are also per the
American importers instructions.

No argument here on that score...each has a price point/market segment
they're trying to hit and some are better at implementing controls than
others. Mattel comes to mind as the latter, maybe...

OTOH, there are overseas importers selling direct who are pretty much
"get away w/ whatever can" including direct patent infringement,
counterfeit logos/brand marks, etc., etc., etc., ... So in some cases
it's not the importers who are actually the "'Murricuns". There's
plenty of shady folks on all sides of all bodies of water or territorial
boundaries.

--

Consider me a source. When I use fuels with up to 10% alcohol I typically
get in excess of a 10% drop in gas mileage.
If it work out better I would admit it, from my stand point alcohol is
simply a filler that burns but does not contribute.

"dpb" wrote in message ...
Robatoy wrote:
...

Same, but different, argument about bio fuels. The NET energy is
negative in some cases.

For which cases would you be postulating that, and from what sources?

Only sources I've seen that draw that conclusion rely on assumptions that
neglect portions of the cycle (such as the solar input on the input side
or the usable byproducts on the output) or from very old
sources/processes. These sources have uniformly been funded by groups
whose agenda is to discredit them (like the ads run locally in this area
against a new power plant permit on the basis of air pollution and carbon
sequestration that were actually financed by a large natural gas producer
who is lobbying for new natural gas-fired plants. Talk about a way to
waste a much more valuable resource for other purposes in order to have a
short-term gain! ).

While I'll agree wholeheartedly biofuels aren't going to be the full
answer, they will make a significant conribution, particularly during a
transition period until H or other more exotics are available.

--

Leon wrote:
"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
On Nov 26, 8:29 pm, Doug Winterburn wrote:
Robatoy wrote:

Not to mention that disposing of Prius batteries, after their useful
life has passed, is going to be a nightmare.
Some claim making the Prius battery is an even bigger problem:

http://tinyurl.com/2u3xyy
That is amazing. Thanks for that input.

Same, but different, argument about bio fuels. The NET energy is
negative in some cases.

Again, not for the proposed fuel cycles from any reputable analysis I've
seen...

Not to mention that fuels with alcohol have a negative effect on the engine.
Alcohol attracts water and water does not settle out like it does in normal
gasoline. The higher the alcohol content, the more likely it is to get
fuel contamination.

Actually, not really. Alcohol works just fine as an engine fuel for
engines designed for it. The only real significant problems w/ early
passenger cars was in plastics and rubber compounds that weren't
designed to be alcohol-resistant and they dissolved.

Gasoline fuel "drying" products are essentially alcohol in which water
is soluble so it is picked up in small quantities at a time rather than
coming into the fuel system in sufficient "blobs" as to cause icing
and/or misses.

--

"John Horner" wrote in message
news:YEV2j.11628$ch.6383@trnddc03...
Leon wrote:

Until the US can deliver equal value or better the manufacturing jobs
will go to other countries.

Indeed it can. The US based Honda and Toyota factories are growing and
successful.

Correct but US based or not, they are Japanese owned and controlled
companies. Additionally building a successful marketable product also
includes the engineering and design.

dpb wrote:


Where is Saw-Stop manufacturing, do you know? I always presumed they
were using offshore contracted production, but don't actually know...


From: http://www.sawstop.com/how-it-works-faqs.htm

"25. Where is your saw made? The electronics are made here in the United
States and the saw and accessories are made in Taiwan. "

J. Clarke wrote:


rolling eyes


Isn't that the typical behavior of a think-the-know-it-all teenager?

B A R R Y wrote:
Frank Boettcher wrote:

Don't know, have not kept up with Saw Stop except for threads here
relating to whether the technology should be mandated which I am not
in favor of.

Saw Stop is made in China.

Only if you consider Taiwan part of China, which is the subject a lots
of debate!

"dpb" wrote in message ...

Actually, not really. Alcohol works just fine as an engine fuel for
engines designed for it. The only real significant problems w/ early
passenger cars was in plastics and rubber compounds that weren't designed
to be alcohol-resistant and they dissolved.


Yes the fuel works fine if delivered clean and uncontaminated. If your tank
has water in it as most do, it will mix witht he fuel.



Gasoline fuel "drying" products are essentially alcohol in which water is
soluble so it is picked up in small quantities at a time rather than
coming into the fuel system in sufficient "blobs" as to cause icing and/or
misses.

Yes but these products are used in small quantities. Typically 1/8 to 1/4"
of a gallon to be introduced to 15 - 20 gallons of fuel. Alcohol based
fuels typically have a minimum of 1.5 to 2 gallons of alcohol in 15-20
gallons of fuel.

J. Clarke wrote:


Huh? What, exactly, does a tax deduction on business use of a motor
vehicle have to do with the fuel economy laws?

Nothing.

One of the reasons for the popularity of large SUV's was the way a
vehicle 6000 pounds was depreciated by self-employed individuals.

Leon wrote:


And is considered to be a high quality piece of equipment, further
indicating that the cheap crap coming from China is per the American
importer instructions.

I checked out a Saw Stop in person recently, and it does appear to have
very nice fit and finish. If the materials match the fit and finish,
the saw will prove to be a very high-quality tool.

John Horner wrote:

It is called an anti-drainback valve and most oil filter incorporate
one. Without it your engine would take longer to build oil pressure at
start up, which is a bad thing.


The valve is not present in the correct Toyota oil filter.

John Horner wrote:
B A R R Y wrote:
Frank Boettcher wrote:

Don't know, have not kept up with Saw Stop except for threads here
relating to whether the technology should be mandated which I am not
in favor of.

Saw Stop is made in China.

Only if you consider Taiwan part of China, which is the subject a lots
of debate!

Oh, ok. That's much easier to get accomplished, then, I'm sure. (The
political aspects I won't comment on. )

--

Leon wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
Actually, not really. Alcohol works just fine as an engine fuel for
engines designed for it. The only real significant problems w/ early
passenger cars was in plastics and rubber compounds that weren't designed
to be alcohol-resistant and they dissolved.


Yes the fuel works fine if delivered clean and uncontaminated. If your tank
has water in it as most do, it will mix witht he fuel.



Gasoline fuel "drying" products are essentially alcohol in which water is
soluble so it is picked up in small quantities at a time rather than
coming into the fuel system in sufficient "blobs" as to cause icing and/or
misses.

Yes but these products are used in small quantities. Typically 1/8 to 1/4"
of a gallon to be introduced to 15 - 20 gallons of fuel. Alcohol based
fuels typically have a minimum of 1.5 to 2 gallons of alcohol in 15-20
gallons of fuel.

Current "Dual-fuel" vehicles will run all the way to E85 which is 85%
alcohol, not just E10.

The dissolution of any water w/ the fuel is actually "a_good_thing" (TM)
as compared to gasoline as icing and "water-misses" will be a thing of
the past for them (essentially you have a continuous scavenger).

It does take some care in handling, but that will simply be part of the
infrastructure. I foresee no significant issue on that score.

--

Leon wrote:
Consider me a source. When I use fuels with up to 10% alcohol I typically
get in excess of a 10% drop in gas mileage.

Alcohol does not have the specific energy on a volume basis of gasoline,
true. That's not the same thing at all as a net negative energy balance.

If it work out better I would admit it, from my stand point alcohol is
simply a filler that burns but does not contribute.

If it "burns" it contributes...there's that doggone thermodynamics stuff
again for ya'...

....

"dpb" wrote in message ...
Leon wrote:
Consider me a source. When I use fuels with up to 10% alcohol I
typically get in excess of a 10% drop in gas mileage.

Alcohol does not have the specific energy on a volume basis of gasoline,
true. That's not the same thing at all as a net negative energy balance.

If it work out better I would admit it, from my stand point alcohol is
simply a filler that burns but does not contribute.

If it "burns" it contributes...there's that doggone thermodynamics stuff
again for ya'...

...

Yes it burns but if it contributes 10% of what gasoline does and delivers
less for more cost what have you accomplished?

"Leon" wrote in message
. net...
Consider me a source. When I use fuels with up to 10% alcohol I typically
get in excess of a 10% drop in gas mileage.
If it work out better I would admit it, from my stand point alcohol is
simply a filler that burns but does not contribute.

I'll have to pay more attention the next time I see a drag race with the
alcohol funny cars. I could swear I see them moving down the strip with all
that filler in the tank.

todd

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:54:52 -0500, "J. Clarke" wrote:



One doesn't have to be rich to afford an SUV, and SUVs have to meet
the same emission laws as any other vehicle, so if they are "spewing
insane amounts of sickening fumes" then so are little econoboxes. In
California they are now putting emission controls on motorcycles and I
understand that lawn mowers are going to be next--they've reached the
point of diminishing returns with cars, SUVs, and trucks.

AFAIK, the Federal emissions laws for vehicle manufacturers still have a sliding
scale for fuel economy and if they make enough 30 mpg cars they can make "X"
number of 10 mpg trucks and SUV's..

Then, California puts stuff in the unleaded fuel that's supposed to make it burn
cleaner..
2 results from that are that they found out that the additives were poisoning
the ground water and that you got less mpg with the "cleaner" fuel, so you
needed to burn more gas and make more emissions to go the same distance...

Glad we're out of all that craziness now...


mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

John Horner wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:


rolling eyes


Isn't that the typical behavior of a think-the-know-it-all teenager?

I've seen Hillary Clinton do it to Bush. It's a typical reaction to a
statement so far off the wall that one has trouble figuring out how to
_start_ educating the person making it.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

B A R R Y wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:


Huh? What, exactly, does a tax deduction on business use of a
motor
vehicle have to do with the fuel economy laws?

Nothing.

One of the reasons for the popularity of large SUV's was the way a
vehicle 6000 pounds was depreciated by self-employed individuals.

The major part of it however is the fact that they are not counted in
the government-mandated corporate average fuel economy taxation
imposed on automobile manufacturers. I think you'll find that most
SUV drivers are _not_ self employed. Further, most SUVs do not weigh
6000 pounds.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 19:58:32 GMT, Brian Henderson
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 10:34:44 -0800, mac davis
wrote:

Folks in Mexico don't have the job security that the US workers have... Screw up
a truck and they're back on the street..

Or jumping the border.

not worth it.. they can make more in Mexico at a good job than in the States
picking grapes..


mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 19:15:46 GMT, "Leon" wrote:


"mac davis" wrote in message
.. .

Oh.. AFAIK, they never did do it right.. my '95 and a friends 97 blazer
still
have it and we both carry a $100 replacement kit for when it goes..

They don't change because it is done right the first time. ;~)
If you recall the old Oldsmobile diesels engines back in the late 70's and
early 80's, the filter system was totally bogus and was the source of 50% of
its problems. The very last year the Olds diesel was built and used in the
early mid 80's they put an elaborate fuel filter system on. It should have
been put on the second year after all the problems in the first year.

Or, they could have designed a real diesel engine and had a lot less problems..


mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

J. Clarke wrote:
B A R R Y wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
So get the laws changed so that station wagons and old-style luxury
cars aren't unduly penalized and you'll see SUVs mostly go away.

The laws did change, either this year or in tax year 2006. I seem
to
remember hearing that a Section 179 truck depreciation deduction
went
to 10000 pounds GVW.

I don't own anything that qualifies right now, so I', not positive.

Huh? What, exactly, does a tax deduction on business use of a motor
vehicle have to do with the fuel economy laws?


The generous tax deduction for business owned vehicles (which includes
just about every consultant, small business and contract employee like
real estate agents) was for a time only available to vehicles with over
a 6,000 lb. gross vehicle weight (vehicle plus full load). Hummers,
Expeditions and the like qualified while normal passenger vehicles did
not. Thus a large number of folks were given a tax break only if they
bought a monster truck instead of a passenger vehicle. The deduction
allowed for a full write off in the year of purchase.

You can read all about it he

http://www.bankrate.com/brm/itax/biz...20030403b1.asp

J. Clarke wrote:
I think you'll find that most
SUV drivers are _not_ self employed.

All you need is a part time gig to deduct the expenses for that business.

Further, most SUVs do not weigh
6000 pounds.

Gross weight, not light weight. Lots of SUV's and quad cab pickups
gross over 3 tons.

Check out his list:

http://www.alphaleasing.com/businessaspects/over6000gvwr.asp

dpb wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Nov 26, 3:54 pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:

How is "their behavior" "irresponsible, nay, short-lived"? If you are
talking about consuming fuel, if everybody drove a mo-ped it would
still run out, just might take a little longer. There is no level of
consumption that will result in the oil lasting forever. Might be the
great grandkids instead of the grandkids who have to transition to a
different fuel, but it's still going to happen.

Might as well blow it all out of our asses and get it over with, huh?
I tend to support the viewpoint that if we conserve, we might buy
ourselves enough time to find alternate solutions. ...

Tell that to the Chinese and the other developing nations -- whatever
changes in our actions can realistically make will so far in the noise
of their changes as to make no discernible difference.

Options are there, they're just not yet economically viable. When they
become so, then they'll take off.

--
When does it become viably economical? When the oil companies are
squeezing the last drops out of the ground and charging us $50 a gallon
for gas?

Robatoy wrote:
On Nov 26, 5:59 pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Nov 26, 4:34 pm, dpb wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Nov 26, 3:54 pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
How is "their behavior" "irresponsible, nay, short-lived"? If
you
are talking about consuming fuel, if everybody drove a mo-ped it
would still run out, just might take a little longer. There is
no
level of consumption that will result in the oil lasting forever.
Might be the great grandkids instead of the grandkids who have to
transition to a different fuel, but it's still going to happen.
Might as well blow it all out of our asses and get it over with,
huh? I tend to support the viewpoint that if we conserve, we might
buy ourselves enough time to find alternate solutions. ...
Tell that to the Chinese and the other developing nations --
whatever
changes in our actions can realistically make will so far in the
noise of their changes as to make no discernible difference.
Options are there, they're just not yet economically viable. When
they become so, then they'll take off.
--
It is the fact that we over-consume that makes us vulnerable to
making
mistakes.
Who is this "we" and what "mistakes" are "we vulnerable to making"? I
see far more people starving in places where energy consumption is far
lower than in the US than I do in the US. So seems to me that _they_
are the ones who are "vulnerable".

Oh goody, we're talking about energy/fuel, now we have added
herring...I mean food.. I mean lack of herring...food...red
herrings... I'm all confused now. (That tactic is called ridiculing
the opponent)

I'll get right on chasing that.

Try to stay on topic, John.

The topic being what. I thought this topic was about tools.

B A R R Y wrote:
John Horner wrote:

It is called an anti-drainback valve and most oil filter incorporate
one. Without it your engine would take longer to build oil pressure
at start up, which is a bad thing.


The valve is not present in the correct Toyota oil filter.


Not according to Toyota!

"An anti-drainback valve, which prevents oil from draining out of the
engine and into the oil pan, helping to protect your engine from
increased wear during cold starts."

http://www.toyota.com/html/shop/deal...ilfilters.html

J. Clarke wrote:
John Horner wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

rolling eyes

Isn't that the typical behavior of a think-the-know-it-all teenager?

I've seen Hillary Clinton do it to Bush. It's a typical reaction to a
statement so far off the wall that one has trouble figuring out how to
_start_ educating the person making it.


You just might not be so much smarter, better informed and more deeply
educated than other people as you may think.

mac davis wrote:
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:54:52 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:



One doesn't have to be rich to afford an SUV, and SUVs have to meet
the same emission laws as any other vehicle, so if they are
"spewing
insane amounts of sickening fumes" then so are little econoboxes.
In
California they are now putting emission controls on motorcycles
and
I understand that lawn mowers are going to be next--they've reached
the point of diminishing returns with cars, SUVs, and trucks.

AFAIK, the Federal emissions laws for vehicle manufacturers still
have a sliding scale for fuel economy and if they make enough 30 mpg
cars they can make "X" number of 10 mpg trucks and SUV's..

The "sliding scale for fuel economy" is called "Corporate Average Fuel
Economy" or "CAFE" and it is a tax law. The only relation to
emissions laws is that the EPA is charged with calculating the fuel
economy on which the tax is based. There is no sliding standard for
_emissions_ that I am aware of . The deal is that the automakers are
taxed on the _average_ fuel economy of all cars they sell. There is
no prohibition on large cars, but if they sell too many of them their
taxes go up.

And trucks and SUVs are _exempt_ from CAFE as are most other
"commercial vehicles". This is the main reason that the car
manufacturers are selling so many of them--station wagons and large
sedans are _not_ exempt so they've cut way back on those and instead
are selling SUVs in the same niches.

Then, California puts stuff in the unleaded fuel that's supposed to
make it burn cleaner..

CT does that too but only in the winter.

2 results from that are that they found out that the additives were
poisoning the ground water and that you got less mpg with the
"cleaner" fuel, so you needed to burn more gas and make more
emissions to go the same distance...

Glad we're out of all that craziness now...


mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

J. Clarke wrote:
Nova wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote:

Remember the same thing. I think "pot metal" was reference to a
very low grade of metal casting that would neither weld, braze, nor
glue well after it was made.


Also known as white metal. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_metal

Well, that's what wiki says. I remember looking at a car once and
being told "please don't lean on that door, the hinges are white
metal". The car was a Ferrari 250GTO and the "white metal" was an
expensive aluminum alloy, not cheap zinc.

But, apparently just as good as the dinky toy made of pot "white" metal.