Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
#151
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
Eeyore wrote:
>
> Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>
>
>>Eeyore wrote:
>>
>>>Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>When one looks at the weight of today's cars, one common fact comes out;
>>>>Weight gain is due mostly to safety considerations.
>>>
>>>This is especially a problem in the USA where it seem the public thinks heavy
>>>vehicles are safer.
>>
>>If push comes to shove, the heavier vehicle will suffer less damage than
>>the lighter should the two tango.
>
>
> The *vehicle* may indeed suffer less damage. Doesn't necessarily hold true for the
> people inside.
>
>
>
>>Quite frankly, I feel a whole lot safer in my 1955 Studebaker President
>>with seat belts than I do in my 1983 Civic.
>
>
> Whereas in fact you're far worse off.
>
> Graham
>
Hmmmmm.... I've survived for 67 years without the modern nanny safety crap.
JT
#152
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
Earle Horton wrote:
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:46539EBC.98F2A30@hotmail.com...
>
>>
>>Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Eeyore wrote:
>>>
>>>>Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>When one looks at the weight of today's cars, one common fact
>>>>>comes out;
>>>>>Weight gain is due mostly to safety considerations.
>>>>
>>>>This is especially a problem in the USA where it seem the public
>>>>thinks heavy vehicles are safer.
>>>
>>>If push comes to shove, the heavier vehicle will suffer less damage than
>>>the lighter should the two tango.
>>
>>The *vehicle* may indeed suffer less damage. Doesn't necessarily hold
>>true for the people inside.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Quite frankly, I feel a whole lot safer in my 1955 Studebaker President
>>>with seat belts than I do in my 1983 Civic.
>>
>>Whereas in fact you're far worse off.
>>
>
> Not necessarily. The other car and its occupants may serve as his "crush
> zone".
>
> Saludos,
>
> Earle
>
>
Egg-Zact-Lee!
<G>
JT
#153
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
Earle Horton wrote:
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:46539EBC.98F2A30@hotmail.com...
>
>>
>>Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Eeyore wrote:
>>>
>>>>Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>When one looks at the weight of today's cars, one common fact
>>>>>comes out;
>>>>>Weight gain is due mostly to safety considerations.
>>>>
>>>>This is especially a problem in the USA where it seem the public
>>>>thinks heavy vehicles are safer.
>>>
>>>If push comes to shove, the heavier vehicle will suffer less damage than
>>>the lighter should the two tango.
>>
>>The *vehicle* may indeed suffer less damage. Doesn't necessarily hold
>>true for the people inside.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Quite frankly, I feel a whole lot safer in my 1955 Studebaker President
>>>with seat belts than I do in my 1983 Civic.
>>
>>Whereas in fact you're far worse off.
>>
>
> Not necessarily. The other car and its occupants may serve as his "crush
> zone".
>
> Saludos,
>
> Earle
>
>
Egg-Zact-Lee!
<G>
JT
#154
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
Michael Pardee wrote:
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:46539F26.C3CCCA14@hotmail.com...
>
>>
>>Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Not to mention the fire bomb characteristics of the current crop of cop
>>>cars..
>>
>>I hadn't heard of that being British and all. Cars catching fire over here
>>is virtually
>>unheard of.
>>
>>Graham
>>
>>
>
>
> I haven't been following closely, but I gather the Ford Crown Victoria that
> is so popular with law enforcement in the US has a problem with the fuel
> tank placement or protection. There have been a few cases of the car being
> hit from behind and engulfing the occupant in flaming gasoline - reminiscent
> of the Pinto problem nearly 40 years ago.
> http://www.crownvictoriasafetyalert.com/ has what looks like an explanation.
>
> Mike
>
Yep... Sorta like the Pinto problem of the 1970's.
Ya gotta luv 'em!
JT
#155
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
Michael Pardee wrote:
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:46539F26.C3CCCA14@hotmail.com...
>
>>
>>Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Not to mention the fire bomb characteristics of the current crop of cop
>>>cars..
>>
>>I hadn't heard of that being British and all. Cars catching fire over here
>>is virtually
>>unheard of.
>>
>>Graham
>>
>>
>
>
> I haven't been following closely, but I gather the Ford Crown Victoria that
> is so popular with law enforcement in the US has a problem with the fuel
> tank placement or protection. There have been a few cases of the car being
> hit from behind and engulfing the occupant in flaming gasoline - reminiscent
> of the Pinto problem nearly 40 years ago.
> http://www.crownvictoriasafetyalert.com/ has what looks like an explanation.
>
> Mike
>
Yep... Sorta like the Pinto problem of the 1970's.
Ya gotta luv 'em!
JT
#156
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
> Hmmmmm.... I've survived for 67 years without the modern nanny safety crap.
Plenty more haven't.
Personal anecdotes of that nature are hardly convincing are they ?
Graham
#157
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
> Hmmmmm.... I've survived for 67 years without the modern nanny safety crap.
Plenty more haven't.
Personal anecdotes of that nature are hardly convincing are they ?
Graham
#158
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
Eeyore wrote:
>
> Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>
>> Hmmmmm.... I've survived for 67 years without the modern nanny safety crap.
>
> Plenty more haven't.
>
> Personal anecdotes of that nature are hardly convincing are they ?
>
> Graham
>
Maybe not but good defensive driving practices are.
JT
#159
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
Eeyore wrote:
>
> Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>
>> Hmmmmm.... I've survived for 67 years without the modern nanny safety crap.
>
> Plenty more haven't.
>
> Personal anecdotes of that nature are hardly convincing are they ?
>
> Graham
>
Maybe not but good defensive driving practices are.
JT
#160
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
> Earle Horton wrote:
> > "Eeyore" wrote
> >>Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
> >>
> >>>If push comes to shove, the heavier vehicle will suffer less damage than
> >>>the lighter should the two tango.
> >>
> >>The *vehicle* may indeed suffer less damage. Doesn't necessarily hold
> >>true for the people inside.
> >>
> >>>Quite frankly, I feel a whole lot safer in my 1955 Studebaker President
> >>>with seat belts than I do in my 1983 Civic.
> >>
> >>Whereas in fact you're far worse off.
> >
> > Not necessarily. The other car and its occupants may serve as his "crush
> > zone".
>
>
> Egg-Zact-Lee!
But then again they may not.
A 'stiff' vehicle will in fact exert much higher damaging g-forces on its
occupants than one that does indeed have crush zones.
Yet another classic example where so-called 'common sense' proves to be very
unsensible.
Graham
#161
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
> Earle Horton wrote:
> > "Eeyore" wrote
> >>Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
> >>
> >>>If push comes to shove, the heavier vehicle will suffer less damage than
> >>>the lighter should the two tango.
> >>
> >>The *vehicle* may indeed suffer less damage. Doesn't necessarily hold
> >>true for the people inside.
> >>
> >>>Quite frankly, I feel a whole lot safer in my 1955 Studebaker President
> >>>with seat belts than I do in my 1983 Civic.
> >>
> >>Whereas in fact you're far worse off.
> >
> > Not necessarily. The other car and its occupants may serve as his "crush
> > zone".
>
>
> Egg-Zact-Lee!
But then again they may not.
A 'stiff' vehicle will in fact exert much higher damaging g-forces on its
occupants than one that does indeed have crush zones.
Yet another classic example where so-called 'common sense' proves to be very
unsensible.
Graham
#162
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
> >
> >> Hmmmmm.... I've survived for 67 years without the modern nanny safety crap.
> >
> > Plenty more haven't.
> >
> > Personal anecdotes of that nature are hardly convincing are they ?
> >
> > Graham
> >
>
> Maybe not but good defensive driving practices are.
No argument with that. It's a shame it's not taught as part of driver training in
the USA AIUI.
The other one I like that's now included in the UK test is hazard recognition.
Graham
#163
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
> >
> >> Hmmmmm.... I've survived for 67 years without the modern nanny safety crap.
> >
> > Plenty more haven't.
> >
> > Personal anecdotes of that nature are hardly convincing are they ?
> >
> > Graham
> >
>
> Maybe not but good defensive driving practices are.
No argument with that. It's a shame it's not taught as part of driver training in
the USA AIUI.
The other one I like that's now included in the UK test is hazard recognition.
Graham
#164
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
bill wrote:
> On May 22, 11:32 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>> Tegger wrote:
>>> Broderick Crawford <bcrawford2...@roadrunner.com> wrote in
>>> news:4652c91f$0$4724$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:
>>>> safety, Drive right and you won't need it. Safety is just a
>>>> protection scheme invented by the American car companies to keep out
>>>> the competition.
>>> If that's the case, the plan isn't working very well.
>> that's the ironic stupidity of it! rather than re-invest and compete,
>> detroit simply put lipstick on their pig and hoped to keep selling it.
>> now, domestic product is /so/ bad and /so/ behind the technology curve,
>> it's hard to see how they could ever catch up. it's not like anyone
>> couldn't see this coming, not least detroit, and they were filling their
>> pants with their fears. but then they had the reprieve of the suv
>> phenomenon when they were suddenly making 50% /NET/ profits on those
>> pieces of the garbage, and the japanese were standing about scratching
>> themselves wondering what the people were buying those dumb-***
>> vehicles for. but ever the pragmatists, the japanese soon figured that
>> if that's what the round-eyes wanted, that's what they would get, and
>> suddenly the only thing detroit had left was taken away. dumb bastards.
>> they deserve to go down in flames if they can't get smart.
>>
>>> The domestics are
>>> losing market share left right and center. Isn't Toyota poised to displace
>>> GM in the #1 position in a few years?
>
>
> Not helping that the cost of medical insurance in the us amounts
> to $1500/vehicle, and that the union labor cost is $25/hour for
> uneducated high school dropouts who can barely be trusted to swing a
> hammer.
> These costs cut into the profit margins on the manufacturing
> end, and must be made up somewhere, and you can't really do it with
> efficiency improvements because those are capital intensive. so they
> make up for it on skimpy design cycle and poor tolerance machining, n
> other words, our cushioned american asses make crap cars because our
> union *********** would rather make crap cars than get paid what
> they're worth.
>
it's not a union thing dude. it's management that makes decisions on
componentry specs, re-investment in new design and my own personal
favorite, production technology aka automation. absent /any/ attention
in those departments, american cars will forever remain utter crap.
> On May 22, 11:32 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>> Tegger wrote:
>>> Broderick Crawford <bcrawford2...@roadrunner.com> wrote in
>>> news:4652c91f$0$4724$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:
>>>> safety, Drive right and you won't need it. Safety is just a
>>>> protection scheme invented by the American car companies to keep out
>>>> the competition.
>>> If that's the case, the plan isn't working very well.
>> that's the ironic stupidity of it! rather than re-invest and compete,
>> detroit simply put lipstick on their pig and hoped to keep selling it.
>> now, domestic product is /so/ bad and /so/ behind the technology curve,
>> it's hard to see how they could ever catch up. it's not like anyone
>> couldn't see this coming, not least detroit, and they were filling their
>> pants with their fears. but then they had the reprieve of the suv
>> phenomenon when they were suddenly making 50% /NET/ profits on those
>> pieces of the garbage, and the japanese were standing about scratching
>> themselves wondering what the people were buying those dumb-***
>> vehicles for. but ever the pragmatists, the japanese soon figured that
>> if that's what the round-eyes wanted, that's what they would get, and
>> suddenly the only thing detroit had left was taken away. dumb bastards.
>> they deserve to go down in flames if they can't get smart.
>>
>>> The domestics are
>>> losing market share left right and center. Isn't Toyota poised to displace
>>> GM in the #1 position in a few years?
>
>
> Not helping that the cost of medical insurance in the us amounts
> to $1500/vehicle, and that the union labor cost is $25/hour for
> uneducated high school dropouts who can barely be trusted to swing a
> hammer.
> These costs cut into the profit margins on the manufacturing
> end, and must be made up somewhere, and you can't really do it with
> efficiency improvements because those are capital intensive. so they
> make up for it on skimpy design cycle and poor tolerance machining, n
> other words, our cushioned american asses make crap cars because our
> union *********** would rather make crap cars than get paid what
> they're worth.
>
it's not a union thing dude. it's management that makes decisions on
componentry specs, re-investment in new design and my own personal
favorite, production technology aka automation. absent /any/ attention
in those departments, american cars will forever remain utter crap.
#165
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
bill wrote:
> On May 22, 11:32 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>> Tegger wrote:
>>> Broderick Crawford <bcrawford2...@roadrunner.com> wrote in
>>> news:4652c91f$0$4724$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:
>>>> safety, Drive right and you won't need it. Safety is just a
>>>> protection scheme invented by the American car companies to keep out
>>>> the competition.
>>> If that's the case, the plan isn't working very well.
>> that's the ironic stupidity of it! rather than re-invest and compete,
>> detroit simply put lipstick on their pig and hoped to keep selling it.
>> now, domestic product is /so/ bad and /so/ behind the technology curve,
>> it's hard to see how they could ever catch up. it's not like anyone
>> couldn't see this coming, not least detroit, and they were filling their
>> pants with their fears. but then they had the reprieve of the suv
>> phenomenon when they were suddenly making 50% /NET/ profits on those
>> pieces of the garbage, and the japanese were standing about scratching
>> themselves wondering what the people were buying those dumb-***
>> vehicles for. but ever the pragmatists, the japanese soon figured that
>> if that's what the round-eyes wanted, that's what they would get, and
>> suddenly the only thing detroit had left was taken away. dumb bastards.
>> they deserve to go down in flames if they can't get smart.
>>
>>> The domestics are
>>> losing market share left right and center. Isn't Toyota poised to displace
>>> GM in the #1 position in a few years?
>
>
> Not helping that the cost of medical insurance in the us amounts
> to $1500/vehicle, and that the union labor cost is $25/hour for
> uneducated high school dropouts who can barely be trusted to swing a
> hammer.
> These costs cut into the profit margins on the manufacturing
> end, and must be made up somewhere, and you can't really do it with
> efficiency improvements because those are capital intensive. so they
> make up for it on skimpy design cycle and poor tolerance machining, n
> other words, our cushioned american asses make crap cars because our
> union *********** would rather make crap cars than get paid what
> they're worth.
>
it's not a union thing dude. it's management that makes decisions on
componentry specs, re-investment in new design and my own personal
favorite, production technology aka automation. absent /any/ attention
in those departments, american cars will forever remain utter crap.
> On May 22, 11:32 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>> Tegger wrote:
>>> Broderick Crawford <bcrawford2...@roadrunner.com> wrote in
>>> news:4652c91f$0$4724$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:
>>>> safety, Drive right and you won't need it. Safety is just a
>>>> protection scheme invented by the American car companies to keep out
>>>> the competition.
>>> If that's the case, the plan isn't working very well.
>> that's the ironic stupidity of it! rather than re-invest and compete,
>> detroit simply put lipstick on their pig and hoped to keep selling it.
>> now, domestic product is /so/ bad and /so/ behind the technology curve,
>> it's hard to see how they could ever catch up. it's not like anyone
>> couldn't see this coming, not least detroit, and they were filling their
>> pants with their fears. but then they had the reprieve of the suv
>> phenomenon when they were suddenly making 50% /NET/ profits on those
>> pieces of the garbage, and the japanese were standing about scratching
>> themselves wondering what the people were buying those dumb-***
>> vehicles for. but ever the pragmatists, the japanese soon figured that
>> if that's what the round-eyes wanted, that's what they would get, and
>> suddenly the only thing detroit had left was taken away. dumb bastards.
>> they deserve to go down in flames if they can't get smart.
>>
>>> The domestics are
>>> losing market share left right and center. Isn't Toyota poised to displace
>>> GM in the #1 position in a few years?
>
>
> Not helping that the cost of medical insurance in the us amounts
> to $1500/vehicle, and that the union labor cost is $25/hour for
> uneducated high school dropouts who can barely be trusted to swing a
> hammer.
> These costs cut into the profit margins on the manufacturing
> end, and must be made up somewhere, and you can't really do it with
> efficiency improvements because those are capital intensive. so they
> make up for it on skimpy design cycle and poor tolerance machining, n
> other words, our cushioned american asses make crap cars because our
> union *********** would rather make crap cars than get paid what
> they're worth.
>
it's not a union thing dude. it's management that makes decisions on
componentry specs, re-investment in new design and my own personal
favorite, production technology aka automation. absent /any/ attention
in those departments, american cars will forever remain utter crap.