That is if one does not mind spending $4,000 or $5,000 MORE to drive home a
car of the same size and the same equipment, as is the case with the now
poor selling Pruis. Especially when that $4,000 or $5,000 will buy all of
the gas for a conventionally powered car, of the same size and the same
equipment, for 4 or five years. "Green" means more "green" out of YOUR
pocket. LOL



"Jeff" <jeff.utz@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f7865aaa-db17-451b-8d00-08939a47bd38@z1g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 26, 11:21 am, "knee'em" <perryneh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Your ex-Nincompoop In Chief's CAFE (corporate average fuel-efficiency)
> standards law signed in 2007 will raise car requirements to a mere 35
> miles per gallon, and not until 2020! A typical Bush give-away to
> the already failed U.S. auto industry.

No to mention that the standards are a joke. They get extra for having
flex fuel vehicles.

> "But California's tailpipe emissions rules would have effectively
> required even greater fuel-efficiency increases, by seeking to cut
> vehicles' greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent between 2009 and
> 2016, something American automakers have resisted."

They already make cars that do that, like the Focus, Escape Hybrid and
Fusion Hybrid soon.

Jeff

> ------------------
> "Obama to Take Steps On Car Fuel Efficiency"
>
> By Juliet Eilperin and Steven Mufson
> Washington Post Staff Writers
> Monday, January 26, 2009; A02
>
> President Obama plans to instruct key federal agencies today to
> reexamine two policies that could force automakers to produce more
> fuel-efficient cars that yield fewer greenhouse gas emissions,
> according to sources who have been briefed on the announcement.
>
> The move, which the White House has privately trumpeted to supporters
> as "the first environment and energy actions taken by the president,
> helping our country move toward greater energy independence," could
> reverse two Bush-era decisions that have helped shape the nation's
> climate policy and its auto market.
>
> Obama will instruct the Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider
> whether to grant California a waiver to regulate automobile tailpipe
> emissions linked to global warming, sources said, and he will order
> the Transportation Department to issue guidelines that will ensure
> that the nation's auto fleet reaches an average fuel efficiency of 35
> miles per gallon by 2020, if not earlier.
>
> On Dec. 19, 2007, then-EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson blocked
> the efforts of California and more than a dozen other states to limit
> automobiles' carbon dioxide emissions, arguing that President George
> W. Bush had addressed the issue by signing a law that same day raising
> the corporate average fuel-efficiency standard to 35 miles per gallon
> by 2020. But California's tailpipe emissions rules would have
> effectively required even greater fuel-efficiency increases, by
> seeking to cut vehicles' greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent
> between 2009 and 2016, something American automakers have resisted.
>
> The Bush administration never issued near-term guidelines for tighter
> fuel-efficiency standards: The Transportation Department circulated a
> proposal last fall that would have required auto companies to build
> new cars averaging as much as 31.8 miles per gallon by 2015, compared
> with the current level of 27.5 miles per gallon, but it announced less
> than two weeks before Bush left office that it would not issue formal
> guidelines.
>
> Daniel J. Weiss, who directs climate strategy at the Center for
> American Progress, a liberal think tank, praised the new
> administration for pressing ahead with ambitious fuel economy goals.
>
> "President Obama's actions will reduce our oil dependence by speeding
> the production of the gas-sipping cars of the future," Weiss said. "He
> understands that oil and gasoline prices will rise with our recovering
> economy, and more fuel-efficient cars will help families cope with
> higher prices. And other countries will want to buy our more-efficient
> vehicles."
>
> Officials at General Motors and Ford said they were not aware of what
> the announcement would be. The White House declined to discuss the
> president's planned energy announcement.
>
> Obama, who has consistently urged U.S. automakers to produce more fuel-
> efficient cars, is likely to accelerate the timeline for raising the
> nation's corporate average fuel economy for cars and trucks. The
> Transportation Department guidelines must be issued by April in order
> to affect the 2011 auto fleet.
>
> Granting a waiver for California to regulate tailpipe emissions would
> affect nearly half the U.S. auto market. Thirteen other states --
> including Maryland -- and the District have already adopted
> California's proposal, while at least four others have pledged to do
> so. When the EPA rejected the waiver, Obama issued a statement saying
> the decision "is yet another example of how this Administration has
> put corporate interests ahead of the public interest. If the courts do
> not overturn this decision, I will after I am elected president."
>
> "Not only is the new president a man of his word, but he's making a
> dramatic break with the Bush administration's climate policy," said
> Frank O'Donnell, who heads the advocacy group Clean Air Watch. "It's a
> powerful signal that science -- and the law -- will guide his
> administration's decisions. This should prompt cheers from California
> to Maine."
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...09/01/25/AR200...

 

In article <SOOdnXZG775y_-LUnZ2dnUVZ_hWWnZ2d@ptd.net>,
"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote:

> That is if one does not mind spending $4,000 or $5,000 MORE to drive home a
> car of the same size and the same equipment, as is the case with the now
> poor selling Pruis.

Have you ever ACTUALLY compared equipment levels and prices of Prius vs.
Malibu, for example?

$21,500 for Prius. How much is Malibu?

 

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-6E6A36.14405727012009@mara100-84.onlink.net...
> In article <SOOdnXZG775y_-LUnZ2dnUVZ_hWWnZ2d@ptd.net>,
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote:
>
>> That is if one does not mind spending $4,000 or $5,000 MORE to drive home
>> a
>> car of the same size and the same equipment, as is the case with the now
>> poor selling Pruis.
>
> Have you ever ACTUALLY compared equipment levels and prices of Prius vs.
> Malibu, for example?
>
> $21,500 for Prius. How much is Malibu?


I think Malibus are on sale now for $299.00 + tax. Footmats extra.

 

In article <elmop-6E6A36.14405727012009@mara100-84.onlink.net>,
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

> In article <SOOdnXZG775y_-LUnZ2dnUVZ_hWWnZ2d@ptd.net>,
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote:
>
> > That is if one does not mind spending $4,000 or $5,000 MORE to drive home a
> > car of the same size and the same equipment, as is the case with the now
> > poor selling Pruis.
>
> Have you ever ACTUALLY compared equipment levels and prices of Prius vs.
> Malibu, for example?
>
> $21,500 for Prius. How much is Malibu?

who wants to drive a roller skate.
--


"It's deja vu all over again"
Yogi Berra

 

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-6E6A36.14405727012009@mara100-84.onlink.net...
> In article <SOOdnXZG775y_-LUnZ2dnUVZ_hWWnZ2d@ptd.net>,
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote:
>
>> That is if one does not mind spending $4,000 or $5,000 MORE to drive home
>> a
>> car of the same size and the same equipment, as is the case with the now
>> poor selling Pruis.
>
> Have you ever ACTUALLY compared equipment levels and prices of Prius vs.
> Malibu, for example?
>
> $21,500 for Prius. How much is Malibu?

GM site says $21,600...basic bare bones.

Go for the Prius hands down any day.

 

On Jan 27, 2:39 pm, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote:
> That is if one does not mind spending $4,000 or $5,000 MORE to drive homea
> car of the same size and the same equipment, as is the case with the now
> poor selling Pruis. Especially when that $4,000 or $5,000 will buy allof
> the gas for a conventionally powered car, of the same size and the same
> equipment, for 4 or five years. "Green" means more "green" out of YOUR
> pocket. LOL

And yours.

Obama has been pretty clear that he expects all citizens to bear some
burden in turning our country around. Assuming your usual hyperbole in
your CAFE cost estimate, I think anyone buying a new car can afford an
extra $1500 for CAFE.

I don't expect cheap gasoline to continue much longer either. Higher
federal taxes to keep fuel prices high to make gas guzzlers
unattractive as grocery-getters will probably be enacted just as soon
as this economy gets turned around. Maybe sooner. There are auto
industry execs. calling for federal gas tax increases to stabilize the
price at the pump. Kinda hard to plan for fuel efficient products when
$1.75 gas puts pickups and gigantic SUVs back on the front burner.

And yes, I think it is perfectly appropriate for the federal govt to
use gas taxes to force changes in our buying habits. That's called
energy policy (vs. the total lack of policy we now have thanks to Bush
and his buddies in the oil patch).

 

"ACAR" <getoutanpush@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:680eff45-92f5-43e7-8b6c-3956739c72a8@e18g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
I think anyone buying a new car can afford an extra $1500 for CAFE.

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

They can equally afford $1500 for grapefruit wine, but that's not a good
idea either.

CAFE has been a miserable failure since its inception. The popularity of
large SUVs is arguably a direct response to CAFE; they fall in a different
class so are measured differently. People who would have been satisfied with
a 17 mpg six passenger car instead move to a 14 mpg SUV... brilliant!
Another stellar success for social engineering by bureaucrats.

So... explain to me how CAFE standards - which are entirely dependent on the
quantity of each model sold - influences the design of offered models.
Whoever thought up that screwy idea did the public no favor.

Mike

 

"Michael Pardee" <null@null.org> wrote in
newsridncQJSbrTyR3UnZ2dnUVZ_h6dnZ2d@sedona.net:

> "ACAR" <getoutanpush@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:680eff45-92f5-43e7-8b6c-3956739c72a8@e18g2000yqo.googlegroups.com.
> ..
> I think anyone buying a new car can afford an extra $1500 for CAFE.
>
>=============================================== ==
>
> They can equally afford $1500 for grapefruit wine, but that's not a
> good idea either.
>
> CAFE has been a miserable failure since its inception. The popularity
> of large SUVs is arguably a direct response to CAFE; they fall in a
> different class so are measured differently. People who would have
> been satisfied with a 17 mpg six passenger car instead move to a 14
> mpg SUV... brilliant! Another stellar success for social engineering
> by bureaucrats.

yes,they left a loophole in CAFE,because of the SUV/light truck commercial
usage.Of course,the automakers took advantage of that,instead of making
better,lighter,smaller cars,and leaving that market to foreign automakers.
One problem is that many people only feel safe in a massive vehicle,and
won't buy a small car if an alternative is available.
That loophole made SUVs/Lt.trucks the alternative choice.

However,the idea to move people to more fuel-efficient vehicles was and
still is a good concept,and in government's "authority",as buying foreign
oil leaves our economy and security vulnerable to foreign manipulation.
Like OPEC did in 1973.

Perhaps a fuel tax would have been a better option.
But that also would have affected our economy.
Note that Congress also restricted domestic oil production,forcing more
imports of foreign oil.
(and did the same now! instead of drilling more US sources.)

>
> So... explain to me how CAFE standards - which are entirely dependent
> on the quantity of each model sold - influences the design of offered
> models. Whoever thought up that screwy idea did the public no favor.
>
> Mike
>
>
>



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

 

On Jan 28, 7:49 am, "Michael Pardee" <n...@null.org> wrote:
> "ACAR" <getoutanp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:680eff45-92f5-43e7-8b6c-3956739c72a8@e18g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
> I think anyone buying a new car can afford an extra $1500 for CAFE.
>
> =================================================
>
> They can equally afford $1500 for grapefruit wine, but that's not a good
> idea either.

grapefruit wine doesn't help buy the technology required to make 35
mpg standard sized sedans.

>
> CAFE has been a miserable failure since its inception. The popularity of
> large SUVs is arguably a direct response to CAFE;

snip

1. kinda dumb to impose large increases to federal gas taxes right
now, don't you think?

2. I said higher gas taxes were on the way after the economy recovers.

CAFE is pretty lame but that's the tool at hand. $1500 on new cars is
far more reasonable than taxing gas so it returns to $4/gal. right
now. Of course, Republicans would love to see Obama raise fuel taxes
as the Dems would take a huge hit during the next election. But that
didn't occur to you, I'm sure.

 

"ACAR" <gmwohl@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f6b7c06f-4c05-4525-9bfc-b77719988e4b@r10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 28, 7:49 am, "Michael Pardee" <n...@null.org> wrote:

1. kinda dumb to impose large increases to federal gas taxes right
now, don't you think?

2. I said higher gas taxes were on the way after the economy recovers.

CAFE is pretty lame but that's the tool at hand. $1500 on new cars is
far more reasonable than taxing gas so it returns to $4/gal. right
now. Of course, Republicans would love to see Obama raise fuel taxes
as the Dems would take a huge hit during the next election. But that
didn't occur to you, I'm sure.


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

Why you presume to read my mind (and you do it so poorly) baffles me. As an
American Republican, I don't see the benefit in further damaging the US
economy with taxes regardless who gets the blame. Do you want to see the
economy damaged? I oppose additional taxes and CAFE for the same reasons;
they are stupid ways to bleed our economy.

The problem with CAFE is that it is not merely worthless, it is damaging
because it saps money from the economy to no advantage. You would not use a
hammer on a fuel injector because it is the tool at hand. Look at the US
petroleum consumption curve at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/25opec/sld007.htm
and tell me by examining the curve when CAFE was enacted. (Hint - it is not
visible within the sharp downturn already produced by market forces.) You
will notice the accompanying text does not mention the effect of CAFE at
all.

Mike

 

"Michael Pardee" <null@null.org> wrote in
news:uLydnXsYIdpXsRzUnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@sedona.net:

> "ACAR" <gmwohl@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f6b7c06f-4c05-4525-9bfc-b77719988e4b@r10g2000prf.googlegroups.com.
> .. On Jan 28, 7:49 am, "Michael Pardee" <n...@null.org> wrote:
>
> 1. kinda dumb to impose large increases to federal gas taxes right
> now, don't you think?
>
> 2. I said higher gas taxes were on the way after the economy recovers.
>
> CAFE is pretty lame but that's the tool at hand. $1500 on new cars is
> far more reasonable than taxing gas so it returns to $4/gal. right
> now. Of course, Republicans would love to see Obama raise fuel taxes
> as the Dems would take a huge hit during the next election. But that
> didn't occur to you, I'm sure.
>
>
>=============================================== =
>
> Why you presume to read my mind (and you do it so poorly) baffles me.
> As an American Republican, I don't see the benefit in further damaging
> the US economy with taxes regardless who gets the blame. Do you want
> to see the economy damaged? I oppose additional taxes and CAFE for the
> same reasons; they are stupid ways to bleed our economy.
>
> The problem with CAFE is that it is not merely worthless, it is
> damaging because it saps money from the economy to no advantage.You
> would not use a hammer on a fuel injector because it is the tool at
> hand. Look at the US petroleum consumption curve at
> http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/25opec/sld007.htm and tell me by examining
> the curve when CAFE was enacted. (Hint - it is not visible within the
> sharp downturn already produced by market forces.) You will notice the
> accompanying text does not mention the effect of CAFE at all.
>
> Mike
>
>
>

the chart you cite doesn't mean anything because after CAFE was enacted,the
LOOPHOLE excluding SUV's/light trucks enabled vehicle buyers to keep on
driving gas hogs,by shifting to those tanks.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

 

On Jan 29, 7:55 am, Jim Yanik <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote:
> "Michael Pardee" <n...@null.org> wrote innews:uLydnXsYIdpXsRzUnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@sedona.net :
>
>
>
> > "ACAR" <gmw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:f6b7c06f-4c05-4525-9bfc-b77719988e4b@r10g2000prf.googlegroups.com.
> > .. On Jan 28, 7:49 am, "Michael Pardee" <n...@null.org> wrote:
>
> > 1. kinda dumb to impose large increases to federal gas taxes right
> > now, don't you think?
>
> > 2. I said higher gas taxes were on the way after the economy recovers.
>
> > CAFE is pretty lame but that's the tool at hand. $1500 on new cars is
> > far more reasonable than taxing gas so it returns to $4/gal. right
> > now. Of course, Republicans would love to see Obama raise fuel taxes
> > as the Dems would take a huge hit during the next election. But that
> > didn't occur to you, I'm sure.
>
> >=============================================== =
>
> > Why you presume to read my mind (and you do it so poorly) baffles me.
> > As an American Republican, I don't see the benefit in further damaging
> > the US economy with taxes regardless who gets the blame. Do you want
> > to see the economy damaged? I oppose additional taxes and CAFE for the
> > same reasons; they are stupid ways to bleed our economy.
>
> > The problem with CAFE is that it is not merely worthless, it is
> > damaging because it saps money from the economy to no advantage.You
> > would not use a hammer on a fuel injector because it is the tool at
> > hand. Look at the US petroleum consumption curve at
> >http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/25opec/sld007.htmand tell me by examining
> > the curve when CAFE was enacted. (Hint - it is not visible within the
> > sharp downturn already produced by market forces.) You will notice the
> > accompanying text does not mention the effect of CAFE at all.
>
> > Mike
>
> the chart you cite doesn't mean anything because after CAFE was enacted,the
> LOOPHOLE excluding SUV's/light trucks enabled vehicle buyers to keep on
> driving gas hogs,by shifting to those tanks.
>
> --
> Jim Yanik
> jyanik
> at
> kua.net

I agree that were it not for the loophole exempting light trucks there
would be no such thing as an SUV, but the persistent liberal BS
rhetoric about "gas hogs", "tanks" etc. still makes my eyes roll.

Having driven in the 70s and 80s when that all took effect, what
really happened was that achieving CAFE on an aritificial politically
dictated schedule resulted in engineering changes to the cars that
were ill conceived and rushed into production. This resulted in 10
years of cars (anything built in the 80s) that simply did not work.

Since the restrictions did not apply to trucks (SUV was a thing that
did not yet exist), suddenly people were buying light trucks. The
migration had more to do with functionality and servicability than
with a degenerate desire for "gas hogs/tanks".

All the SUVs did was fill a need for a standard sized station wagon
for those people who had already jumped to pickups. Remember the
first SUV was simply a four door version of the Ford Bronco II which
was not a gas hog by the standards of the day, and it was practically
a compact when compaired to a '75 full sized car like a Buick or
Cadilac.

 

"e.meyer" (epmeyer50@gmail.com) writes:
> On Jan 29, 7:55=A0am, Jim Yanik <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote:
>> "Michael Pardee" <n...@null.org> wrote innews:uLydnXsYIdpXsRzUnZ2dnUVZ_jC=
> dnZ2d@sedona.net:
>>
>>
>>
>> > "ACAR" <gmw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:f6b7c06f-4c05-4525-9bfc-b77719988e4b@r10g2000prf.googlegroups.com.
>> > .. On Jan 28, 7:49 am, "Michael Pardee" <n...@null.org> wrote:
>>
>> > 1. kinda dumb to impose large increases to federal gas taxes right
>> > now, don't you think?
>>
>> > 2. I said higher gas taxes were on the way after the economy recovers.
>>
>> > CAFE is pretty lame but that's the tool at hand. $1500 on new cars is
>> > far more reasonable than taxing gas so it returns to $4/gal. right
>> > now. Of course, Republicans would love to see Obama raise fuel taxes
>> > as the Dems would take a huge hit during the next election. But that
>> > didn't occur to you, I'm sure.
>>
>> >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>>
>> > Why you presume to read my mind (and you do it so poorly) baffles me.
>> > As an American Republican, I don't see the benefit in further damaging
>> > the US economy with taxes regardless who gets the blame. Do you want
>> > to see the economy damaged? I oppose additional taxes and CAFE for the
>> > same reasons; they are stupid ways to bleed our economy.
>>
>> > The problem with CAFE is that it is not merely worthless, it is
>> > damaging because it saps money from the economy to no advantage.You
>> > would not use a hammer on a fuel injector because it is the tool at
>> > hand. Look at the US petroleum consumption curve at
>> >http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/25opec/sld007.htmand tell me by examining
>> > the curve when CAFE was enacted. (Hint - it is not visible within the
>> > sharp downturn already produced by market forces.) You will notice the
>> > accompanying text does not mention the effect of CAFE at all.
>>
>> > Mike
>>
>> the chart you cite doesn't mean anything because after CAFE was enacted,t=
> he
>> LOOPHOLE excluding SUV's/light trucks enabled vehicle buyers to keep on
>> driving gas hogs,by shifting to those tanks.
>>
>> --
>> Jim Yanik
>> jyanik
>> at
>> kua.net
>
> I agree that were it not for the loophole exempting light trucks there
> would be no such thing as an SUV, but the persistent liberal BS
> rhetoric about "gas hogs", "tanks" etc. still makes my eyes roll.
>
> Having driven in the 70s and 80s when that all took effect, what
> really happened was that achieving CAFE on an aritificial politically
> dictated schedule resulted in engineering changes to the cars that
> were ill conceived and rushed into production. This resulted in 10
> years of cars (anything built in the 80s) that simply did not work.
>
> Since the restrictions did not apply to trucks (SUV was a thing that
> did not yet exist), suddenly people were buying light trucks. The
> migration had more to do with functionality and servicability than
> with a degenerate desire for "gas hogs/tanks".
>
> All the SUVs did was fill a need for a standard sized station wagon
> for those people who had already jumped to pickups. Remember the
> first SUV was simply a four door version of the Ford Bronco II which
> was not a gas hog by the standards of the day, and it was practically
> a compact when compaired to a '75 full sized car like a Buick or
> Cadilac.
>


The first SUV was a ****** Jeep Station Wagon. It was introduced in 1946.

"The ****** Jeep Station Wagon was introduced in 1946. Initially it was
just the 463 model, powered by the L-134 Go-Devil flathead four cylinder.
The 663 model, powered by the L-148 Lightning straight six, was brought in
for 1948. Four-wheel drive becane an option in 1949.

1950 saw a number of changes. The flat grille was replaced by a pointed
v-shape design with five horizontal bars across the vertical ones. New
engines were available, too. The 473 model got the new F-134 Hurricane,
and the 673 model got a new 161 cubic inch version of the Lightning six.
Another big change this year was the addition of a sedan delivery model to
the lineup.

In 1952, the flathead Lightning was dropped in favor of the F-161
Hurricane, installed in the 685 model.

The 1954 model year was the first under Kaiser's ownership. The 6-226
Super Hurricane, a flathead inline six, was introduced. This was a version
of the Kaiser Supersonic/Continental Red Seal engine.

A number of new models were added in 1955. The 6-226 model lineup gained
stripped chassis, flat face cowl, cowl/windshield, and ambulance models.
The 475 line received only the cowl/windshield.

In 1958 a new Maverick model was introduced, a comparatively more
luxurious version of the two-wheel drive wagon. It could be had with
either the four or the six cylinder engine.

The 6-230 Tornado OHC engine was introduced in midyear 1962, replacing the
flathead.

Production ended in 1965, as the ****** model had been phased out by the
Jeep Wagoneer. Over 300,000 wagons and it's variants were built."


The next SUV was a Range Rover, which was the next generation of the
Land Rover. The Range Rover was introduce in 1969. The
Range Rover featured a Buick all aluminium 4.4 L V8.

 

cf005@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (M.A. Stewart) wrote in
news:gltfsj$ih0$1@theodyn.ncf.ca:

> "e.meyer" (epmeyer50@gmail.com) writes:
>> On Jan 29, 7:55=A0am, Jim Yanik <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote:
>>> "Michael Pardee" <n...@null.org> wrote
>>> innews:uLydnXsYIdpXsRzUnZ2dnUVZ_jC=
>> dnZ2d@sedona.net:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > "ACAR" <gmw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> >news:f6b7c06f-4c05-4525-9bfc-b77719988e4b@r10g2000prf.googlegroups.c
>>> >om.
>>> > .. On Jan 28, 7:49 am, "Michael Pardee" <n...@null.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> > 1. kinda dumb to impose large increases to federal gas taxes right
>>> > now, don't you think?
>>>
>>> > 2. I said higher gas taxes were on the way after the economy
>>> > recovers.
>>>
>>> > CAFE is pretty lame but that's the tool at hand. $1500 on new cars
>>> > is far more reasonable than taxing gas so it returns to $4/gal.
>>> > right now. Of course, Republicans would love to see Obama raise
>>> > fuel taxes as the Dems would take a huge hit during the next
>>> > election. But that didn't occur to you, I'm sure.
>>>
>>> >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
>>> >D=3D=
>> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
>> 3D
>>>
>>> > Why you presume to read my mind (and you do it so poorly) baffles
>>> > me. As an American Republican, I don't see the benefit in further
>>> > damaging the US economy with taxes regardless who gets the blame.
>>> > Do you want to see the economy damaged? I oppose additional taxes
>>> > and CAFE for the same reasons; they are stupid ways to bleed our
>>> > economy.
>>>
>>> > The problem with CAFE is that it is not merely worthless, it is
>>> > damaging because it saps money from the economy to no
>>> > advantage.You would not use a hammer on a fuel injector because it
>>> > is the tool at hand. Look at the US petroleum consumption curve at
>>> >http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/25opec/sld007.htmand tell me by
>>> >examining
>>> > the curve when CAFE was enacted. (Hint - it is not visible within
>>> > the sharp downturn already produced by market forces.) You will
>>> > notice the accompanying text does not mention the effect of CAFE
>>> > at all.
>>>
>>> > Mike
>>>
>>> the chart you cite doesn't mean anything because after CAFE was
>>> enacted,t=
>> he
>>> LOOPHOLE excluding SUV's/light trucks enabled vehicle buyers to keep
>>> on driving gas hogs,by shifting to those tanks.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jim Yanik
>>> jyanik
>>> at
>>> kua.net
>>
>> I agree that were it not for the loophole exempting light trucks
>> there would be no such thing as an SUV, but the persistent liberal BS
>> rhetoric about "gas hogs", "tanks" etc. still makes my eyes roll.

I'm no liberal.
But I have driven big cars and big SUVs,and they ARE "tanks",landbarges,and
gashogs.It's no "BS".


>>
>> Having driven in the 70s and 80s when that all took effect, what
>> really happened was that achieving CAFE on an aritificial politically
>> dictated schedule resulted in engineering changes to the cars that
>> were ill conceived and rushed into production. This resulted in 10
>> years of cars (anything built in the 80s) that simply did not work.
>>
>> Since the restrictions did not apply to trucks (SUV was a thing that
>> did not yet exist), suddenly people were buying light trucks. The
>> migration had more to do with functionality and servicability than
>> with a degenerate desire for "gas hogs/tanks".
>>
>> All the SUVs did was fill a need for a standard sized station wagon
>> for those people who had already jumped to pickups. Remember the
>> first SUV was simply a four door version of the Ford Bronco II which
>> was not a gas hog by the standards of the day, and it was practically
>> a compact when compaired to a '75 full sized car like a Buick or
>> Cadilac.

The Bronco WAS a gashog by the standards of that day,unless you compare
them to other gashogs.(it wan't any "compact",either)
Only the foreign compacts got good gas mileage back then.And that was the
goal of CAFE,to get more people to drive compact cars,not landbarges or
trucks.
Too bad US automakers chose to "work around" CAFE.
My 68 English Ford Cortina GT(1.6L) got good mileage for that
period(1973),and sat 4 people,drove great,was fun to drive,easy to park;a
far better car than a Pinto.

>>
>
>
> The first SUV was a ****** Jeep Station Wagon. It was introduced in
> 1946.
>
> "The ****** Jeep Station Wagon was introduced in 1946. Initially it
> was just the 463 model, powered by the L-134 Go-Devil flathead four
> cylinder. The 663 model, powered by the L-148 Lightning straight six,
> was brought in for 1948. Four-wheel drive becane an option in 1949.
>
> 1950 saw a number of changes. The flat grille was replaced by a
> pointed v-shape design with five horizontal bars across the vertical
> ones. New engines were available, too. The 473 model got the new F-134
> Hurricane, and the 673 model got a new 161 cubic inch version of the
> Lightning six. Another big change this year was the addition of a
> sedan delivery model to the lineup.
>
> In 1952, the flathead Lightning was dropped in favor of the F-161
> Hurricane, installed in the 685 model.
>
> The 1954 model year was the first under Kaiser's ownership. The 6-226
> Super Hurricane, a flathead inline six, was introduced. This was a
> version of the Kaiser Supersonic/Continental Red Seal engine.
>
> A number of new models were added in 1955. The 6-226 model lineup
> gained stripped chassis, flat face cowl, cowl/windshield, and
> ambulance models. The 475 line received only the cowl/windshield.
>
> In 1958 a new Maverick model was introduced, a comparatively more
> luxurious version of the two-wheel drive wagon. It could be had with
> either the four or the six cylinder engine.
>
> The 6-230 Tornado OHC engine was introduced in midyear 1962, replacing
> the flathead.
>
> Production ended in 1965, as the ****** model had been phased out by
> the Jeep Wagoneer. Over 300,000 wagons and it's variants were built."
>
>
> The next SUV was a Range Rover, which was the next generation of the
> Land Rover. The Range Rover was introduce in 1969. The
> Range Rover featured a Buick all aluminium 4.4 L V8.
>
>
>


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net