WELL, AT LEAST SOMEONE HAS IT RIGHT!

[Guest]

WELL - SOMEONE IS <span style="font-weight: bold">FINALLY</span> ON THE RIGHT TRACK!!! please see :

http://tinyurl.com/vib5

[color:\\"blue\\"] AND NOT SURPRISINGLY, IT FIGURES - ONCE AGAIN - IT'S <span style="font-weight: bold">NOT</span> THE [color:\\"blue\\"] U.S.A!!!!

Check out some good old fashioned <span style="font-weight: bold">american</span> hypocrisy :

" G.M. has argued that tighter fuel economy rules are unnecessary because technological improvements will someday improve efficiency anyway."

If anyone knows where to get some of [color:\\"red\\"] <span style="font-weight: bold">THOSE</span> DRUGS - PLEASE LET ME KNOW!!!

[Dave@Moon]

Carelton,

Your link just calls up the NY Times online signup page. I get enough spam, so could you cut and paste the article here?

[R W Burgess]

Dave, Do we really need that dribble here on the General Forum? This is certainly not a political forum as has been said so many times before. W

[Guest]

HEY WAYNE - what gives? did <span style="font-weight: bold">YOU</span> read the article?

it's squarely about autos, cars, automobiles, lorries, coaches, roadsters, runabouts, beach buggy, coach, compact, convertible, coupe, fastback, hardtop, hatchback, limousine, notchback, phaeton, roadster, runabout, sedan, station wagon, subcompact, suv, cloverleaf roadster, touring car - et al - or whatever you choose to call them!

question! - did you look at the attachment? just curious - if so, do you know who it is?

[Guest JT]

Carleton, I didn't read the article since the link brought up a sign up page but your attachment looks like Charles Kettering?

[R W Burgess]

Carlton, I haven't a clue who that is. I, like Dave, wasn't about to open a liberal newspaper and put more spam in my computer. I just paid $280.00 to clean this PC out, so I can produce our Region's newsletter. That said, I don't have a problem with automotive oriented material, but you have a habit of adding your little political points of view in with the facts. That forces the moderators to delete parts or all of your post, or even worst case, the entire thread. I don't have a beef, just trying to do my job and prove to everybody that the moderators treat everyone fairly. That's my story, now I have to go to work. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" /> Wayne

[Guest]

Carelton;

Alright already, who is that guy in the attachment, and what is that piece of hardware?

[rocketraider]

The gizmo looks like an early Delco starter/generator unit. Saw a similar device on a '19 Cadillac a few months ago. I believe the pic is a young Boss Kettering.

[6219_Rules]

I read the article. You have to have an online subscription (free) to get the Times online.

Personally I prefer to read the paper but I get the Times online to see what the highlights are for the day.

I do not know if the Chinese have it right or not. In China you have no choice in the matter.

Fortunately they are opening up a little but I dare say you would not be able to own our gas guzzling antiques as they would be against the Revolution and examples of decadent western bourgoises liberalism.

If you want 50 miles per gallon, then you all will have to give up what you like and buy the hybrid cars. It will probably come to that anyway.

And Charlton, there is no reason to be bellicose and defensive. If you dislike the forum and the people who make it available so much that you have to constantly push every limit, perhaps you should find something else to do with your down time. I cannot see why anyone would willingly go where they are obviously unhappy. Its just a thought. You are welcome anytime here as far as I am concerned.

[Old Crabby]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Carelton,

Your link just calls up the NY Times online signup page. I get enough spam, so could you cut and paste the article here? </div></div>

Hi Dave!

Only too happy to comply - here it is in its entirety, and by the way, In three years of on-line subscription to the New York Times, I've NEVER had a problem with unwanted or unsolicited emails eminating from them - in fact, the only complaint I have with them is their increasingly CONservative bent and editorials! {translation - Neanderthal }; that - and their blind support of izrael are my only complaints with the Paper Of record - but that's fodder for another post!

China Set to Act on Fuel Economy

By KEITH BRADSHER

UANGZHOU, China, Nov. 17 ? The Chinese government is preparing to impose minimum fuel economy standards on new cars for the first time, and the rules will be significantly more stringent than those in the United States, according to Chinese experts involved in drafting them.

The new standards are intended both to save energy and to force automakers to introduce the latest hybrid engines and other technology in China, in hopes of easing the nation's swiftly rising dependence on oil imports from volatile countries in the Middle East.

They are the latest and most ambitious in a series of steps to regulate China's rapidly growing auto industry, after moves earlier this year to require that air bags be provided for both front-seat occupants in most new vehicles and that new family vehicles sold in major cities meet air pollution standards nearly as strict as those in Western Europe and the United States.

Some popular vehicles now built in China by Western automakers, including the Chevrolet Blazer, do not measure up to the standards the government has drafted, and may have to be modified to get better gas mileage before the first phase of the new rules becomes effective in July 2005.

The Chinese initiative comes at a time when Congress is close to completing work on a major energy bill that would make no significant changes in America's fuel economy rules for vehicles. The Chinese standards, in general, call for new cars, vans and sport utility vehicles to get as much as two miles a gallon of fuel more in 2005 than the average required in the United States, and about five miles more in 2008.

This country's economy is booming, and a growing upper class in big cities like this one is rapidly buying all the accouterments of a prosperous Western life, including cars. As China burns more fossil fuels, both in factories and in a rapidly growing fleet of motor vehicles, its contribution to global warming is also rising faster than any other country's.

But Zhang Jianwei, the vice president and top technical official of the Chinese agency that writes vehicle standards, said in a telephone interview on Monday that energy security was the paramount concern in drafting the new automotive fuel economy rules, and that global warming had received little attention.

"China has become an important importer of oil so it has to have regulations to save energy," said Mr. Zhang, who is also deputy secretary of the 39-member interagency committee that approved the rules at a meeting this month.

China was a net oil exporter until a decade ago, but its output has not kept up with soaring demand. It now depends on imports of oil for one-third of its needs, mainly from Saudi Arabia and Angola. Before the war, Iraq was also an important supplier. By comparison, the United States now imports about 55 percent of the oil it uses.

The International Energy Agency predicts that by 2030, the volume of China's oil imports will equal American imports now. Chinese strategists have expressed growing worry about depending on a lifeline of oil tankers stretching across the Indian Ocean, through the Strait of Malacca, a waterway plagued by piracy, and across the South China Sea, protected mainly by the United States Navy.

Various Chinese government agencies still have three months to review the legal language in the fuel economy rules, giving automakers some time to lobby against them; as yet, there has been no mention of the approval of the new rules in the government-controlled Chinese media.

But Mr. Zhang said that the rules in draft form were the product of a very strong consensus among government agencies and that "the technical content won't be changed."

Two executives at Volkswagen, the largest foreign automaker in China, said that representatives of their company and of domestic Chinese automakers attended what they described as the final interagency meeting to approve the rules. Under pressure from the government, these auto industry representatives agreed to the new rules despite misgivings, the executives said. "They had no choice but to agree," one of the Volkswagen executives added.

The executive said that Volkswagen's vehicles would meet the first phase of the standards in 2005, while declining to comment on compliance with the second, more rigorous phase, which is to take effect in July 2008.

The new standards are based on a vehicle's weight ? lighter vehicles must go the farthest on a gallon ? and on the type of transmission, with manual-shift cars required to go farther than those with less efficient automatic transmissions.

In a major departure from American practice, all new sport utility vehicles and minivans in China would be required to meet the same standards as automatic-shift cars of the same weight. In the United States, standards for sport utilities and minivans are much lower than for cars.

The Chinese rules do not cover pickups or commercial trucks. According to General Motors market research, there is little demand for pickup trucks in China except from businesses, because the affluent urban consumer who can afford a new vehicle regards pickup trucks as unsophisticated and too reminiscent of the horse-drawn carts still used in some rural areas.

Typically, heavy vehicles are much harder on fuel than light ones, but the new Chinese standards permit the heavy vehicles to get only slightly worse gas mileage. As a result, they provide an incentive for manufacturers to offer smaller, lighter vehicles, which will be easier to design.

The new standards would require all small cars sold in China to achieve slightly better gas mileage than the average new small car sold in the United States now gets, according to calculations by An Feng, a transportation consultant who advised the government on the rules. But officials in Beijing would require much better minimum gas mileage for minivans and, especially, S.U.V.'s than the average vehicle of either type now gets in the United States.

American regulations call for each automaker to produce a fleet of passenger cars with an average fuel economy of 27.5 miles a gallon under a combination of city and highway driving with no traffic; window-sticker values for gas mileage, which include the effects of traffic, are about 15 percent lower. Light trucks, including vans, S.U.V.'s and pickups, are allowed an average of 20.7 miles a gallon without traffic.

But the Bush administration has raised the comparable American standard to 22.2 miles a gallon for the 2007 model year and is now completing a review of whether to raise limits further for 2008. The administration is also considering adopting different standards for different weight classes of light trucks.

[color:\\"red\\"] Over all, average fuel economy in the United States has been eroding since the late 1980's as automakers shifted production from cars to light trucks. It fell in the 2002 model year to the lowest level since 1980. Automakers in Europe have accepted European Union demands to increase fuel economy under different rules that could prove at least as stringent as China's minimums.

The Chinese standards would require the greatest increases for full-size S.U.V.'s like the Ford Expedition, which would have to go as much as 29 percent farther on a gallon of fuel in 2008 than they do now in the United States, Mr. An calculated. Sport utility sales in China have more than doubled so far this year, but are still a much smaller part of the overall market than they are in the United States.

Because the American standards are fleet averages while the Chinese standards are minimums for each vehicle, the effect of the Chinese rules could be considerably more stringent. A manufacturer can sell vehicles in the United States that are far below average in fuel efficiency if it has others in its product line that offset it by being above average. But under the Chinese rules, the fuel-inefficient models ? especially new ones introduced after the standards take effect ? would be subject to fines no matter how well their siblings do, Mr. Zhang said, and the maker would not be allowed to expand production of the gas-guzzling models. In Garrison Keillor's phrase, China plans to require that every vehicle be above average.

Mr. An said that at the final meetings on the new rules, the only outspoken objections had come from a representative of the Beijing Automotive Industry Holding Company, which makes Jeeps in a joint venture with DaimlerChrysler.

According to people who have seen the new standards, many Jeep models sold in China do not now comply with them; neither do the Chevrolet Blazer sport utilities built by a General Motors joint venture in Shenyang. Some of Volkswagen's car models also fall slightly short, these people said. By contrast, Honda's cars, built at a sprawling factory complex here in Guangzhou, the commercial hub of southern China, would comply easily because they use advanced engine technology, these people said.

Trevor Hale, a DaimlerChrysler spokesman, declined to comment in detail. "DaimlerChrysler complies with local regulations where it does business," Mr. Hale said in an e-mail response to an inquiry. "It continues working to improve fuel economy in the vehicles it develops, builds and sells around the world."

Bernd Leissner, the president of Volkswagen Asia Pacific, said that his company's cars would comply because "it's just a question of how to adapt the engine ? it's something that could be done quickly."

The fastest way to improve fuel efficiency is to switch from gasoline to diesel engines, as Volkswagen is starting to do in China. The latest diesel engines are much cleaner than those of a decade ago, but are still more polluting than gasoline engines of similar power.

A spokeswoman for General Motors, which is beginning to introduce Cadillac luxury cars in China, said she did not have enough information about the newly drafted rules to comment on them, but that her company's vehicles were comparable in fuel economy to those of rival manufacturers in the same market segments. Executives of G.M. were preparing for an event in Beijing on Tuesday and Wednesday when the company plans to showcase examples of its work on gasoline-saving fuel-cell and hybrid engines for cars.

[color:\\"red\\"]In the United States, G.M. has argued that tighter fuel economy rules are unnecessary because technological improvements will someday improve efficiency anyway. G.M. and other automakers have also contended in the United States that higher gasoline taxes would represent a better policy than higher gas mileage standards, because it would give drivers an economic incentive to choose more efficient vehicles and to drive fewer miles.

China is still considering its policy on fuel taxes, but has not acted so far, because higher fuel taxes would impose higher costs on many sections of society, Mr. Zhang said.

Another company that could run into trouble over the Chinese mileage standards is Toyota, which on Nov. 6 began selling a locally produced version of its full-size Land Cruiser sport utility vehicle in China. A spokesman said on Monday that Toyota had not yet heard about the new Chinese fuel economy regulations, which have been prepared with a level of secrecy typical of many Chinese regulatory actions.

Japan is also phasing in new fuel efficiency standards based on vehicle weight that allow heavier vehicles only slightly worse gas mileage than lighter ones. American automakers have complained that the Japanese rules discriminate against them because Japanese automakers tend to produce slightly lighter cars anyway.

China has more than 100 automakers, as Detroit did a century ago, but the bulk of its output comes from a small number of joint ventures with multinational companies. Total production has more than doubled in the last three years, to about 3.8 million cars and light trucks in 2002, nearly as many as Germany. The United States builds about 12 million a year, Japan about 10 million.

The cars that Chinese automakers produce on their own tend to be very small and lightweight, but the engines are built on older technology, and may not have an easy time complying with the new fuel economy standards.

The government has been encouraging the industry to consolidate, and the new rules may hasten that process by forcing investment in engine designs that small companies may not be able to afford on their own.

[Dave@Moon]

<span style="font-weight: bold">May the God they don't believe in bless them!!!</span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> In the United States, G.M. has argued that tighter fuel economy rules are unnecessary because technological improvements will someday improve efficiency anyway. </div></div>

This statement may be more true that anyone in Detroit can understand. I know there are a couple of Toyota Prius drivers that regularly read this forum. Most of us are probably familiar with the 2001-2003 version of this car. Just wait until the 2004 version is commonly available!

I can't believe how far and how fast they've been able to advance that technology. The 2004 car is <span style="font-weight: bold"> [color:\\"red\\"] MUCH bigger, faster, and more efficient!</span> The new car is essentially a Taurus/Accord sized four door hatchback that gets <span style="font-weight: bold"> [color:\\"green\\"] 60 miles per gallon! </span> Stunning!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> If you want 50 miles per gallon, then you all will have to give up what you like and buy the hybrid cars. It will probably come to that anyway.

</div></div>

By the way, it does a 10 second 0 to 60 and a 17 second 1/4 mile while doing it! So Randall, no. In fact you won't have to give up much of anything, and quite likely as technology progresses you'll probably gain performance and utility.

=====================================================

Wayne, do you really consider the <span style="font-style: italic">New York Times</span> a "liberal" newspaper????

The world can't really be that frightening, can it? If so, cancel your subscription to <span style="font-style: italic">Rolling Stone</span> before it's too late!

========================================================

Randall, I think Carleton had every right to be insulted. People have become increasingly intolerant of the views of others here to the extent that (as Wayne just did) people are jumping to conclusions as to subject matter without even checking what it is, let alone substantively digesting it.

I think Carleton and I are getting used to that.

[Guest Skyking]

I think everyone should be driving Metropolitans...40 mpg.

[Guest]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think everyone should be driving Metropolitans...40 mpg. </div></div>

how about the legendary RENAULT DAUPHINE?! - 28 HP/44 MPG - {32 HP in the later improved "free breathing" version} and [color:\\"red\\"] 40 HP in the Ultra High performance [color:\\"blue\\"]GORDINI!!! - of course mileage suffered accordingly!

[Dave@Moon]

<span style="font-style: italic">THE WHIZZER WILL RIDE AGAIN!!!!</span>

[6219_Rules]

I would like to know who is being intolerant of you. Generally things run very smoothly, and while it is not a perfect world we do our level best to provide an equal playing field. That includes you and Charlton. I have mostly enjoyed your posts as they tend to be insightful, intelligent and thought provoking. However, if you want total unanimity to say and do as you wish, then I guess there will be times when we disagree. I can only speak for myself, as I am not an apologist for the group, and to that end I leave the majority of posts alone unless they clearly violate the perimeters of the forum as laid down by the organization. As I said, all are welcome here who want to use and enjoy the forum for its intended use. Most political diatribes and religious comments are not acceptable because the members of the forum find such to be unacceptable. There was a time when we did not discuss these subjects in general company, leaving it for friends and associates in venues meant for such discussions. This is common sense and common courtesy.

If you feel that you are being unfairly delt with then you should speak with a representative of the AACA. It bothers me that this is still an issue. On the other hand, as long as the discussions are adult, and polite, I see no reason to remove any post. I reserve the right to move posts that are not generally auto related to the R&R section. And I will only remove posts that violate the basic rules that have been published previously. Beyond that, I cannot see how I can be more fair.

You have brought up some good points in this post. Thank you for your insight. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I would like to know who is being intolerant of you. </div></div>

Let's see.

The forum's not run smoothly. There isn't a level playing field. I want total unanimimity. I want to say and do as I wish (I believe that was supposed to be a seperate concept from unanimity in your post). <span style="font-style: italic">And</span> I feel I am being unfairly dealt with.

Yeah, [color:\\"red\\"]<span style="font-style: italic"><span style="font-weight: bold">I</span></span> said and meant all those things in my post.

What's with all the defensiveness?

Carelton posts a link to the <span style="font-style: italic">New York Times</span> web site and he's automatically presumed to be espousing a political manifesto. I point out that he should be insulted by that (single) mis-treatment, and I'm nailing a list of grievences to door at the Diet of Worms.

Intolerance is a form of hyper-sensitivity. So is shooting the messenger.

[Dave@Moon]

By the way, Randall, if <span style="font-style: italic">any</span> of those negative things in your post were true, or if posters even suspected they were true, would posts like the one I just made even be attempted?

We're doing fine.

[Guest]

Dave,thanks supporting my position amongst these conclusion jumpers of olympic proportions

I'm not insulted nor offended at all, remember,I was once [color:\\"red\\"]UNPERSONED for my views on popular culture of a bygone era!

Let's just say the more I know people the less I expect of them and leave it at that.

[color:\\"green\\"] SAD,AIN'T IT??

[Guest BillP]

Hey Crabby,

Be it known I harbor no opinion or care regarding the various matters you boys trouble yourselves with herein. Gas mileage? Not a glimmer of a thought. Freedom of expression? Nada; I usually make my point somehow to those that care to listen. Yawn.

Grammatical error though, Mr. O.C., is where I resolutely draw the line. "olympic proportions", indeed! Olympics are for those blessed few, fleet of foot and lithe of limb who flit their way across your Wheaties box. Think Mark Spitz and that ice skating chick with the lead pipe. A conclusion jumper of Olympian proportions, however, clearly and overtly states the magnitude of the deed. Visualize Zeus, thunderbolts, puny humans, stuff like that. A different kettle of macaroni altogether. Wake up America.

[1937hd45]

BillP, I know this being picky on my part, but you mentioned a "lead pipe" in the above reply. Whenever someone is wacked with a pipe or piece of bar stock that happens to be within easy reach it is referred to in all reports as a "lead pipe". I think the plumbing industry and the EPA have done way with lead pipes, I can't remember the last time I saw one. Has some slick defence attorney allowed an alleged assailant to run free because the pipe was in fact galvanized?

[Guest BillP]

Once again, trying to sprint from the outhouse with my knickers around my ankles. If I recall the details of the case correctly, the frosty ice maiden in question caused her trenchcoat-clad bodyguard/companion/sycophant to slitheringly approach her chief rival, who by virtue of marginal talent and wholesomeness had the judges eye, and smite her on the knee with a METAL pipe, the precise composition of alloy of which having been lost in the sands of time. The convenient and evergreen appellation 'lead pipe', having roots in dogeared copies of dime novels and the board game "Clue", has achieved generic status alongside Coke, Kleenex and Classic Car (mandatory auto related), thus my mention of it here.

Lead pipe, yet another casualty in society's march toward a risk-free world.

[Guest DeSoto Frank]

Alas, is there no place for the "gadfly" in our "brave, new, politically-correct 21-st Century" ?

Personally, I look forward to Carelton's offerings - don't always agree, but it usually provokes some thought on my part...

So (forgive me if I missed the answer in the foregoing posts ), who IS the dude in the tin-type, and what is the gizmo ?

If that is Boss Kett, that's not the most flattering photo I've seen of him...

Wonder if the "National Fuel Economy" would improve if every knucklehead who blows past me on I-81 every day(usually in a big, honkin' SUV or Full-sized pick-up), drove the posted speed limit (55 mph), instead of 75-80+ mph ?....

Wonder if there would be fewer accidents...

[Guest BillP]

Hey Frank-

I like DeSotos, I even have an old Dodge. So, like, I'm OK, you're OK. But I note a lack of consistency here.

Brer Crabby's supposed to be allowed to be a gadfly, (I agree, but that's beside the point) yet fast drivers are knuckleheads. And then there's that whole SUV thing. What if it turned out that, unbeknownst to you, all speeding SUV drivers were gadflys?

[ALF1]

"Lead pipe" harkens back to the days when all us young hoodlums in the Bay Area (although "Gangs of San Francisco" just doesn't have the menace that "New York" does) had a 12-inch piece of pipe filled with lead. Other necessary accoutrements were a roll of dimes (for fistfighting) and a zip gun carved of wood with a stout rubber band which actually would fire a .22 short round. God, we thought we were tough in those day -- until Officer Hannitty walked his rounds and cuffed us up alongside the ears. [color:\\"red\\"]And of such stuff is legends made...irrespective of truth and/or reality.

<span style="font-weight: bold">-- ALF</span>

[Dave@Moon]

Back to how intelligent people discuss the current car market.

It's occurred to me that many readers may not have seen any of the new Prius (which I've pretty much gone on about enough here to pass for a shill), so I'm posting a few images of the new and old car to try to show how dramatic the change has been.

2001-

2003:

2004:

Because it's a hatchback, the new car doesn't photograph as big as it actually is. Notice how much smaller the (actually larger) tires seem to get on the new mid-sized car compared to the old sub-compact model. <span style="font-style: italic"><span style="font-weight: bold">AND</span> the price didn't change!</span> It's still a $20-23K car, price competative with conventional cars of the same size!

If Toyota can build these in quantity, and the cars at least come close to living up to Toyota's quality reputation, we're seeing the end of conventional car manufacturing beginning this year. No doubt.

[Guest DeSoto Frank]

So noted...

I guess then, that makes me the nice little be-spectacled, boring, law-abiding nebbish driving the 62 year-old De Soto at the posted speed limit (probably being a "traffic hazard" in & of myself, by driving slower than most of the surrounding traffic)...

"Consistency" is fine...(when it suits my ends )

Frankly, I don't think the speeders and road hogs in the SUVs have the intellectual stuffings to be "gadflys"...(in general); in fact, it's usually the LACK of thought that brings about speeding, tailgating, road-hogging, purchasing of H2s that we didn't know we couldn't live without....by the way, did I mention "accidents" ?

With respect to the posted speed limit on my daily commute (25 miles each way on I-81 through NE PA): I just find it really amazing how many people speed (lots, in fact, most of 'em! Like 15-20 MPH over the limit or more); I notice it more in the De Soto, because I keep the speed at 60 or less (I have clocked the speedo - it is 5 mph slow, so I compensate).

If I'm driving a modern car, I tend to keep up with the crowd more, so I'm not as senstive to "other people's speeding".

Now, if you have a vehicle that'll do it, and you want to drive down the road at 90 mph, I guess that's your business/risk...but don't come screaming up on MY rear bumper in the right hand lane, then tailgate till I either speed-up or pull-over to let you by (epsecially when I'm "boxed-in", and there's obviously a big honkin' semi in front of me...duh-uhh! )...NO PASSING ON THE RIGHT EITHER!

No sir, I think "gadflys" are at least thinking creatures; other "-flys" are just mindless pests....

Well, I'm going to hold-it up right here, before I get further into my "downward spiral on the whole human race"...(must've been something I et...)

[Guest BillP]

Attaboy Frank. We should have a slow race, DeSoto vs Dodge. By the way I absolutely never in a million years woulda thought they'd ever sell even a tenth as many of those H2s as you see on the road. It's just amazing. Wasn't there a bunch of McMullens up in Susquehanna County?

[Guest Skyking]

Hey Dave, those are real fugly cars......my god, whose designing them, the blind?

[6219_Rules]

The real tragedy is that with this car, you don't even have to know how to park...just use the computer to do it for you. People are getting so mentally lazy they don't want to bother to learn how to drive, navigate or manage their vehicles. I wonder how well most would do parallel parking my queen mary of a 1947 Cad?

Its like airbags and ABS...marvels of technology for a safer highway...until the idiot behind you at the DMV tells his friend how he doesn't care how fast he drives...he has ABS and Airbags so the worst that happens is he gets a new car! <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />

[1937hd45]

Guess that Aztec impressed the folks in the land of the rising sun.

[rocketraider]

At least I'm not the only one to see the similarity...

There's times when I think every car designer in every studio on the planet is on crack or some hallucinogen.

[Guest DeSoto Frank]

Well, you know, it's all the fault of John Q. Public...

people keep on buying this .......stuff.....no matter how "fugly" or useless...

I'm sure Barnum continues to smile from the Great Beyond, knowing that he will probably be "right" as long as there are human beings around...

"Right this way folks, to see the Great Egress!"

[ply33]

Random thoughts based on earlier posts in this thread:

Gas mileage: Power required to overcome wind resistance goes up as the cube of speed. Double your speed, you need eight times the power. There may be other counter balancing factors, but basically higher speed means higher fuel consumption per mile. Wind resistance is also proportional to frontal area: The big SUVs have more of that than a sedan too. Even if they weighed the same as a sedan, the SUV would get worse mileage. Physics: Laws that you can't get around.

Speed: In the example DeSoto Frank lists: Commute time for 25 miles at 80 is 19 minutes. At 60 MPH it is 25 minutes, you save 6 minutes assuming you actually average that. What with traffic, lights and distance on roads other than the freeway you probably save a whole lot less. I know on my daily commute the variation in drive time from day to day due to traffic signals is more than 6 minutes.

If you are in the country cruising all day on the freeway, you can save considerable time by driving 80 instead of 60. On your relatively short daily commute, the savings are not very impressive.

Accidents: Last I looked SUVs have a higher incidence of roll over and a higher incidence of driver fatalities than a standard sedan. In a car vs SUV accident you are probably better off in a SUV. But you are apparently more likely to be in a single vehicle accident in a SUV and you are slightly more likely to die in a single vehicle accident in a SUV.

Gas price and availability: Look through the DOE web site. Do the math on the current rate of oil consumption and estimated world reserves. We won't run out in my lifetime. But within a surprising few years we will reach the point where production will be going down because what is left is hard to get to. Drilling in national parks, etc. won't change the date which production peaks by more than a few months. Is it worth destroying pristine, unique areas for six months of "cheap" gas?

Then look at where we are putting our military and correlate it with locations of oil fields (developed or potential) and/or oil pipe lines (current or proposed). There is a high correlation. Our gas is already very expensive but much of the cost is indirect: We are definitely using our military to pay for "cheap gas".

So, if we are going to run low on gas in the relatively near future and we are spending lots of money on the military to protect our current supplies, why are we not working hard to find another way to do things? Insanity has been defined as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

As an side note: Our 2001 Prius, purchased in 2000, has been a trouble free car that we like very much. So much so, that we are getting a 2004 Prius to replace the Jeep Cherokee with 200,000 miles that I use to go skiing and camping with. The new Prius actually has a longer flat space with the rear seat down than the Jeep. I looked at the current crop of SUVs and did not find anything that I could fit my gear into that would get the same (much less better) mileage than the old Cherokee. The Subaru line was the most promising. Nothing from Detroit was close.

[Guest DeSoto Frank]

Tod,

I remember reading one of those Popular Mechanics car handbook features that my Dad had hung onto from the 1950's, and it had a little chapter on how to stretch your driving dollar...common sense things such as avoiding jack-rabbit starts and sudden stops (saves gas & tires), keeping speed "under 50 mph" (they had a little chart that illustrated gas mileage at 30, 40, 50, and 60 mph, and peak mileage was at around 30, and dropped steadily to about 50 mph, and above 50 mph. dropped rapidly...remember -they were probably talking about long-stroke l-head engines and 1940's gear ratios (around 4:1))

They definitely tried to point out that driving habits have a lot to do with fuel/vehicle economy.

They also emphasized regular (daily & weekly) maintenance on the car: keeping tires properly inflated and aligned, and noting things like leaks and other malfunctions and attending to them in a timely fashion, so as to keep the car in peak running order...

Personally, I like the idea of the Hybrid cars like the Prius and the Honda Insight; if I were going to be in the market for a brand new car, I would strongly consider one of these...

[Guest imported_PackardV8]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

" G.M. has argued that tighter fuel economy rules are unnecessary because technological improvements will someday improve efficiency anyway."

</div></div>

Yes. Yes indeed. "What is good for GM is good for America". Those immortal words were spoken by a man much bigger and brilliant than ALL of those combined that ever visited this forum.

Amen and Amen.

[R W Burgess]

Dave, Just got home. Yes, it's 2;30 am EST and I'm checking on you guys. But, Dave, I saw my first Prius today on a car carrier while fueling up my rig. The 60 mpg(city) got my attention, then I noticed it "only" gets 51 mpg on the highway. Figures exactly backwards of what you'd expect. Ugly? Yes, absolutely, but if I had a daily commute I would consider this car. That's "3" times what any of my yard "ornaments" get. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> I even called the wife to tell her about it. Glad to see this thread got back to cars. Wayne

[Guest imported_PWN]

The hybrids DO NOT get the milage that TDI and other modern diesels do and their drivability and towing is minimal compared to the VW TDI's. Run on BioDiesel or vegetable oil www.biodiesel.org www.tdiclub.com www.greasecar.com they are FAR SUPERIOR to gas and hybrids. Hybrids have toxic batteries that will cause problems in the future and if you are in a bad accident you need a hazmat team to deal with your car and battery.

Biodiesel is made from waste vegetable oil or surplus soy oils. Biodiesel cars emit polluting hydricarbons, etc at levels 80% less than gas and is considered a ZERO carbon emission vehicle.

BioDiesel use in the US has gone from a couple hundred thousand gallons 5 years ago to several million gallons or more. BioDiesel is NON TOXIC and BIODIEGRADABLE.

A few probelms with BioD - current distribution and slightly higher cost.

BioD has superior lubrication than diesel and a higher cetane. It is a superior fuel.

My 96 VW PASSAT TDI seats five adult, 2 90 pound dogs, pulls a boat, tops out at 120 mph and gets 44 mpg in the city.

Say no to the Devil Tea and BURN THE BEAN - in your everyday driver.

[rocketraider]

General Bullmoose?

Or am I the only one who considers Al Capp the greatest political cartoonist of all time?

"Ah hears strange moosick."- Li'l Abner, upon hearing the Song of the Shmoo...

[Guest DeSoto Frank]

RR,

Al Capp is definitely up there w/ Herblock & Walt Kelly...

(It's hard to explain any of these "past-masters" of the drawing board to any one born after the Kennedy administration...)

So, these bio-deesel, does eet smell any better than traditional Diesel fuel, when combusted?

[Guest Hal Davis (MODEL A HAL)]

What about all the rain forests that will be destroyed to make way for the farm land it will take to produce the corn (canola, soybeans, sunflowers, etc....) it will take to produce this fuel. What about the herbicides and fertilizers that will be sprayed and eventually get in our drinking water? What about all the ozone that will be produced by these crops. Good up in the atmosphere, but bad down here, you know.