Re: Plan on driving a new car on a 3000mile highway trip. Bad idea?
In article <slrng2f8na.47l.joe@barada.griffincs.local>,
Joe <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo.com> wrote: > > Classified by whom? > > > > The only classification that matters is the guy who bought it. > > > > No, the only classification that matters is the one the government > makes, since they determine the safety ratings and the licensing and > registration fees. Ummmmmm.....no, the only classification that matters is the guy who buys it. He calls it a car. It's a car. You're apparently one of those types who has to go around talking about everything down to the last detail. "He took his 4 door 4wd SUV to the store, he didn't walk." |
Re: Plan on driving a new car on a 3000mile highway trip. Bad idea?
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in news:elmop-
04F114.07112412052008@nntp9.usenetserver.com: > In article <slrng2f8na.47l.joe@barada.griffincs.local>, > Joe <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo.com> wrote: > >> > Classified by whom? >> > >> > The only classification that matters is the guy who bought it. >> > >> >> No, the only classification that matters is the one the government >> makes, since they determine the safety ratings and the licensing and >> registration fees. I suspect the insurance companies also classify it as a truck.And they DO matter. > > Ummmmmm.....no, the only classification that matters is the guy who buys > it. He calls it a car. It's a car. you're repeating that doens't make it true. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
Re: Plan on driving a new car on a 3000mile highway trip. Bad idea?
The US Government classifies a PT Cruiser a "Truck," so using them as a
reference is questionable. -- Nick |
Re: Plan on driving a new car on a 3000mile highway trip. Bad idea?
"Nick Cassimatis" <nickpc0spam@nc.rr.com> wrote in
news:482afc4f$0$5735$4c368faf@roadrunner.com: > The US Government classifies a PT Cruiser a "Truck," so using them as a > reference is questionable. > I mentioned that in my original post. It's a "light truck",BTW. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
Re: Plan on driving a new car on a 3000mile highway trip. Bad idea?
On 2008-05-12, Elmo P. Shagnasty <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
> In article <slrng2f8na.47l.joe@barada.griffincs.local>, > Joe <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo.com> wrote: > >> > Classified by whom? >> > >> > The only classification that matters is the guy who bought it. >> > >> >> No, the only classification that matters is the one the government >> makes, since they determine the safety ratings and the licensing and >> registration fees. > > Ummmmmm.....no, the only classification that matters is the guy who buys > it. He calls it a car. It's a car. > > You're apparently one of those types who has to go around talking about > everything down to the last detail. "He took his 4 door 4wd SUV to the > store, he didn't walk." > No. If he said he walked, I'd probably say he drove, but I wouldn't care what he drove. If he said he bought a car, and I looked at it and saw a truck, I'd say he bought a truck. There are different laws governing all kinds of things that are different between cars and trucks. There are different insurance rates and registration fees. A truck is not a car any more than a car is a moped. -- Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733 joe at hits - buffalo dot com "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the time..." - Danny, American History X |
Re: Plan on driving a new car on a 3000mile highway trip. Bad idea?
On 2008-05-14, Nick Cassimatis <nickpc0spam@nc.rr.com> wrote:
> The US Government classifies a PT Cruiser a "Truck," so using them as a > reference is questionable. > They do not. -- Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733 joe at hits - buffalo dot com "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the time..." - Danny, American History X |
Re: Plan on driving a new car on a 3000mile highway trip. Bad idea?
Joe <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo.com> wrote in
news:slrng2pt4k.vda.joe@barada.griffincs.local: > On 2008-05-14, Nick Cassimatis <nickpc0spam@nc.rr.com> wrote: >> The US Government classifies a PT Cruiser a "Truck," so using them as a >> reference is questionable. >> > > They do not. > > When Chrysler brought out the PT Cruiser,they designed it as a "light truck" so it would not have to meet stricter passenger car standards for fuel economy.(CAFE) see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_PT_Cruiser; It is a front-wheel drive 5-passenger vehicle, classified as a truck by the NHTSA for CAFE fuel economy calculations but as a car by most other metrics. Indeed, Chrysler specifically designed the PT Cruiser to fit the NHTSA criteria for a light truck in order to bring the average fuel efficiency of the company's light truck fleet into compliance with CAFE standards.[2] -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
Re: Plan on driving a new car on a 3000mile highway trip. Bad idea?
On 2008-05-16, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:
> Joe <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo.com> wrote in > news:slrng2pt4k.vda.joe@barada.griffincs.local: > >> On 2008-05-14, Nick Cassimatis <nickpc0spam@nc.rr.com> wrote: >>> The US Government classifies a PT Cruiser a "Truck," so using them as a >>> reference is questionable. >>> >> >> They do not. >> >> > > When Chrysler brought out the PT Cruiser,they designed it as a "light > truck" so it would not have to meet stricter passenger car standards for > fuel economy.(CAFE) > > see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_PT_Cruiser; > > It is a front-wheel drive 5-passenger vehicle, classified as a truck by the > NHTSA for CAFE fuel economy calculations but as a car by most other > metrics. Indeed, Chrysler specifically designed the PT Cruiser to fit the > NHTSA criteria for a light truck in order to bring the average fuel > efficiency of the company's light truck fleet into compliance with CAFE > standards.[2] > Right. It was a conscious decision by Chrysler, not something done by an idiotic government panel. Chrysler used the rules to their advantage. -- Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733 joe at hits - buffalo dot com "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the time..." - Danny, American History X |
Re: Plan on driving a new car on a 3000mile highway trip. Bad idea?
Joe <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo.com> wrote in
news:slrng2q7g8.vda.joe@barada.griffincs.local: > On 2008-05-16, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote: >> Joe <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo.com> wrote in >> news:slrng2pt4k.vda.joe@barada.griffincs.local: >> >>> On 2008-05-14, Nick Cassimatis <nickpc0spam@nc.rr.com> wrote: >>>> The US Government classifies a PT Cruiser a "Truck," so using them >>>> as a reference is questionable. >>>> >>> >>> They do not. >>> >>> >> >> When Chrysler brought out the PT Cruiser,they designed it as a "light >> truck" so it would not have to meet stricter passenger car standards >> for fuel economy.(CAFE) >> >> see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_PT_Cruiser; >> >> It is a front-wheel drive 5-passenger vehicle, classified as a truck >> by the NHTSA for CAFE fuel economy calculations but as a car by most >> other metrics. Indeed, Chrysler specifically designed the PT Cruiser >> to fit the NHTSA criteria for a light truck in order to bring the >> average fuel efficiency of the company's light truck fleet into >> compliance with CAFE standards.[2] >> > > Right. It was a conscious decision by Chrysler, not something done by > an idiotic government panel. > > Chrysler used the rules to their advantage. > > yes,they designed the PT to -fit into- the *GOV'T* classification of "light truck";the criteria is the government's. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
Re: Plan on driving a new car on a 3000mile highway trip. Bad idea?
"Joe" <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo.com> wrote in message
news:slrng2q7g8.vda.joe@barada.griffincs.local... > On 2008-05-16, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote: >> Joe <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo.com> wrote in >> news:slrng2pt4k.vda.joe@barada.griffincs.local: >> >>> On 2008-05-14, Nick Cassimatis <nickpc0spam@nc.rr.com> wrote: >>>> The US Government classifies a PT Cruiser a "Truck," so using them as a >>>> reference is questionable. >>>> >>> >>> They do not. >>> >>> >> >> When Chrysler brought out the PT Cruiser,they designed it as a "light >> truck" so it would not have to meet stricter passenger car standards for >> fuel economy.(CAFE) >> >> see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_PT_Cruiser; >> >> It is a front-wheel drive 5-passenger vehicle, classified as a truck by >> the >> NHTSA for CAFE fuel economy calculations but as a car by most other >> metrics. Indeed, Chrysler specifically designed the PT Cruiser to fit the >> NHTSA criteria for a light truck in order to bring the average fuel >> efficiency of the company's light truck fleet into compliance with CAFE >> standards.[2] >> > > Right. It was a conscious decision by Chrysler, not something done by > an idiotic government panel. > > Chrysler used the rules to their advantage. > > > -- > Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733 > joe at hits - buffalo dot com > "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the > time..." - Danny, American History X Which means that the US Government classifies a PT Cruiser as a "Truck." But the convertible, which has a "trunk" rather than a "load bed" is a "Car." -- Nick |
Re: Plan on driving a new car on a 3000mile highway trip. Bad idea?
"Nick Cassimatis" <nickpc0spam@nc.rr.com> wrote in
news:482dbe31$0$31747$4c368faf@roadrunner.com: > "Joe" <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo.com> wrote in message > news:slrng2q7g8.vda.joe@barada.griffincs.local... >> On 2008-05-16, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote: >>> Joe <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo.com> wrote in >>> news:slrng2pt4k.vda.joe@barada.griffincs.local: >>> >>>> On 2008-05-14, Nick Cassimatis <nickpc0spam@nc.rr.com> wrote: >>>>> The US Government classifies a PT Cruiser a "Truck," so using them >>>>> as a reference is questionable. >>>>> >>>> >>>> They do not. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> When Chrysler brought out the PT Cruiser,they designed it as a >>> "light truck" so it would not have to meet stricter passenger car >>> standards for fuel economy.(CAFE) >>> >>> see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_PT_Cruiser; >>> >>> It is a front-wheel drive 5-passenger vehicle, classified as a truck >>> by the >>> NHTSA for CAFE fuel economy calculations but as a car by most other >>> metrics. Indeed, Chrysler specifically designed the PT Cruiser to >>> fit the NHTSA criteria for a light truck in order to bring the >>> average fuel efficiency of the company's light truck fleet into >>> compliance with CAFE standards.[2] >>> >> >> Right. It was a conscious decision by Chrysler, not something done >> by an idiotic government panel. >> >> Chrysler used the rules to their advantage. >> >> >> -- >> Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733 >> joe at hits - buffalo dot com >> "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the >> time..." - Danny, American History X > > Which means that the US Government classifies a PT Cruiser as a > "Truck." But the convertible, which has a "trunk" rather than a "load > bed" is a "Car." > I guess the PT ragtop doesn't count towards Chrysler's truck CAFE. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
Re: Plan on driving a new car on a 3000mile highway trip. Bad idea?
Jim Yanik wrote:
> Joe <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo.com> wrote in > news:slrng2q7g8.vda.joe@barada.griffincs.local: > > >>On 2008-05-16, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote: >> >>>Joe <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo.com> wrote in >>>news:slrng2pt4k.vda.joe@barada.griffincs.loca l: >>> >>> >>>>On 2008-05-14, Nick Cassimatis <nickpc0spam@nc.rr.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>The US Government classifies a PT Cruiser a "Truck," so using them >>>>>as a reference is questionable. >>>>> >>>> >>>>They do not. >>>> >>>> >>> >>>When Chrysler brought out the PT Cruiser,they designed it as a "light >>>truck" so it would not have to meet stricter passenger car standards >>>for fuel economy.(CAFE) >>> >>>see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_PT_Cruiser; >>> >>>It is a front-wheel drive 5-passenger vehicle, classified as a truck >>>by the NHTSA for CAFE fuel economy calculations but as a car by most >>>other metrics. Indeed, Chrysler specifically designed the PT Cruiser >>>to fit the NHTSA criteria for a light truck in order to bring the >>>average fuel efficiency of the company's light truck fleet into >>>compliance with CAFE standards.[2] >>> >> >>Right. It was a conscious decision by Chrysler, not something done by >>an idiotic government panel. >> >>Chrysler used the rules to their advantage. >> >> > > > yes,they designed the PT to -fit into- the *GOV'T* classification of "light > truck";the criteria is the government's. > Do you work for Detroit? They gamed the system to save some money. They did the sme thing with safety features like steel beams in doors - left them out of their "light trucks" like at least one minivan that was being marketed as a family car. |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:29 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands