|
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
Michael Pardee wrote:
> "Broderick Crawford" <bcrawford2150@roadrunner.com> wrote in message > news:46524ea6$0$4873$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >> Useful Info wrote: >>> Read all about it, here: http://Muvy.org >>> >> Don't worry, the US will ban it. They do not want to sell less oil. >> >> > > What on earth makes you think that? Zero consumption vehicles, like > bicycles, are popular and encouraged in the US. I have owned several myself > over nearly half a century and have never encountered a "not enough oil" > goon squad. > > The consumption would not be an issue, but crash-worthiness and emissions > are showstoppers. ZEV and P-ZEV vehicles are in great demand by regulators, > especially in California, but AFAIK diesels are still not available in > passenger cars there because of the emissions. The safety info in the > referenced article is not encouraging either; side impact standards > (mandatory in the US) appear to be lacking: "as safe as a GT sports car > registered for racing". That's damning with faint praise; if they could say > it met US safety standards they certainly would have said so. Fuel economy > really doesn't matter to grieving families. > > Mike > > > 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. They WILL NOT make fuel efficient vehicles. Hybrids should get over 100mpg by rights. Americans don't make a single car that gets 50mpg. Europe makes several, every car company makes 2 or 3 that get 50 to 80mpg. Diesel hybrids get 120 to 150mpg. The US will avoid these. Give me a choice, my motorcycle don't have air bags, seat belts or crash test and works just fine. I want a car WITHOUT seat belts and air bags. I want to choose my safety devices, I don't want you to. We don't need forced communist compliance at all. |
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
"Broderick Crawford" <bcrawford2150@roadrunner.com> wrote in message news:4652c91f$0$4724$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > Michael Pardee wrote: >> "Broderick Crawford" <bcrawford2150@roadrunner.com> wrote in message >> news:46524ea6$0$4873$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >>> Useful Info wrote: >>>> Read all about it, here: http://Muvy.org >>>> >>> Don't worry, the US will ban it. They do not want to sell less oil. >>> >>> >> >> What on earth makes you think that? Zero consumption vehicles, like >> bicycles, are popular and encouraged in the US. I have owned several >> myself >> over nearly half a century and have never encountered a "not enough oil" >> goon squad. >> >> The consumption would not be an issue, but crash-worthiness and emissions >> are showstoppers. ZEV and P-ZEV vehicles are in great demand by >> regulators, >> especially in California, but AFAIK diesels are still not available in >> passenger cars there because of the emissions. The safety info in the >> referenced article is not encouraging either; side impact standards >> (mandatory in the US) appear to be lacking: "as safe as a GT sports car >> registered for racing". That's damning with faint praise; if they could >> say >> it met US safety standards they certainly would have said so. Fuel >> economy >> really doesn't matter to grieving families. >> >> Mike >> >> >> > 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. They WILL NOT make fuel efficient vehicles. Hybrids should > get over 100mpg by rights. Americans don't make a single car that gets > 50mpg. Europe makes several, every car company makes 2 or 3 that get 50 > to 80mpg. Diesel hybrids get 120 to 150mpg. The US will avoid these. > Give me a choice, my motorcycle don't have air bags, seat belts or crash > test and works just fine. I want a car WITHOUT seat belts and air bags. > I want to choose my safety devices, I don't want you to. We don't need > forced communist compliance at all. > > Interesting thread for a Honda site, like who cares. |
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
"Broderick Crawford" <bcrawford2150@roadrunner.com> wrote in message news:4652c91f$0$4724$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > Michael Pardee wrote: >> "Broderick Crawford" <bcrawford2150@roadrunner.com> wrote in message >> news:46524ea6$0$4873$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >>> Useful Info wrote: >>>> Read all about it, here: http://Muvy.org >>>> >>> Don't worry, the US will ban it. They do not want to sell less oil. >>> >>> >> >> What on earth makes you think that? Zero consumption vehicles, like >> bicycles, are popular and encouraged in the US. I have owned several >> myself >> over nearly half a century and have never encountered a "not enough oil" >> goon squad. >> >> The consumption would not be an issue, but crash-worthiness and emissions >> are showstoppers. ZEV and P-ZEV vehicles are in great demand by >> regulators, >> especially in California, but AFAIK diesels are still not available in >> passenger cars there because of the emissions. The safety info in the >> referenced article is not encouraging either; side impact standards >> (mandatory in the US) appear to be lacking: "as safe as a GT sports car >> registered for racing". That's damning with faint praise; if they could >> say >> it met US safety standards they certainly would have said so. Fuel >> economy >> really doesn't matter to grieving families. >> >> Mike >> >> >> > 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. They WILL NOT make fuel efficient vehicles. Hybrids should > get over 100mpg by rights. Americans don't make a single car that gets > 50mpg. Europe makes several, every car company makes 2 or 3 that get 50 > to 80mpg. Diesel hybrids get 120 to 150mpg. The US will avoid these. > Give me a choice, my motorcycle don't have air bags, seat belts or crash > test and works just fine. I want a car WITHOUT seat belts and air bags. > I want to choose my safety devices, I don't want you to. We don't need > forced communist compliance at all. > > Interesting thread for a Honda site, like who cares. |
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
In article <4652c91f$0$4724$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
Broderick Crawford <bcrawford2150@roadrunner.com> wrote: > Give me a choice, my motorcycle don't have air bags, seat belts or crash > test and works just fine. I want a car WITHOUT seat belts and air bags. > I want to choose my safety devices, I don't want you to. hehe Yeah, but when you're sitting there with a broken neck, breathing and eating through a tube, you'll want the Nanny State to take care of you at no cost--which means taxpayers like me funding the rest of your miserable life. you. |
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
In article <4652c91f$0$4724$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
Broderick Crawford <bcrawford2150@roadrunner.com> wrote: > Give me a choice, my motorcycle don't have air bags, seat belts or crash > test and works just fine. I want a car WITHOUT seat belts and air bags. > I want to choose my safety devices, I don't want you to. hehe Yeah, but when you're sitting there with a broken neck, breathing and eating through a tube, you'll want the Nanny State to take care of you at no cost--which means taxpayers like me funding the rest of your miserable life. you. |
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
Michael Pardee wrote:
> "Broderick Crawford" <bcrawford2150@roadrunner.com> wrote in message > news:46524ea6$0$4873$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >> Useful Info wrote: >>> Read all about it, here: http://Muvy.org >>> >> Don't worry, the US will ban it. They do not want to sell less oil. >> >> > > What on earth makes you think that? Zero consumption vehicles, like > bicycles, are popular and encouraged in the US. I have owned several myself > over nearly half a century and have never encountered a "not enough oil" > goon squad. > > The consumption would not be an issue, but crash-worthiness and emissions > are showstoppers. ZEV and P-ZEV vehicles are in great demand by regulators, > especially in California, but AFAIK diesels are still not available in > passenger cars there because of the emissions. The safety info in the > referenced article is not encouraging either; side impact standards > (mandatory in the US) appear to be lacking: "as safe as a GT sports car > registered for racing". That's damning with faint praise; if they could say > it met US safety standards they certainly would have said so. Fuel economy > really doesn't matter to grieving families. > > Mike > a lot of the recent "safety" stuff is superfluous. it definitely ruins gas mileage. is there a "conspiracy theory" connection? my 2000 civic weighed over 1,000 lbs more than my 89. it takes a /lot/ of extra gas to lug that extra 1,000lbs up a hill, or accelerate from a standstill. the 2000 should have been more economical based on more advanced injection technology, but they're the same because of the extra weight. it was /significantly/ slower. and based on junkyard crashed vehicles i've seen, the 89, without the extra 1,000lbs, holds up just fine in real world collisions, just as well as the 2000. given that both vehicles have the same brakes and stock tires, the 89 will brake more effectively as it's lighter, potentially avoiding more accidents in the first place. bottom line, there's a lot of myth and b.s. out there. joe's comments in the "nothing goes to waste" thread, are a great example. somewhere down the line, he'd read something improperly researched, and accepted it at face value - as we all have a tendency to do. to get to the truth however, you have to dig. need another example? firestone vs. frod on the exploder rollover fiasco. frod won that one, miraculously. there was no science or analysis behind that. bottom line, a vehicle should not roll because of a flat - tread separation or rocket propelled grenade should make no difference - it should /not/ roll. tire manufacturer or tire failure mode is /utterly/ irrelevant. yet a fundamentally unsafe vehicle, one that was /known/ to be fundamentally unsafe before it even hit production, was sold. in quanity. and when it rolled, it was also known that the roof would collapse killing the occupants. yet because there were no suv rollover safety standards, frod elected to not spend the extra $10 on the materials that would have provided even that extra safety. you talk about grieving families - a /lot/ of people have died in that vehicle. safety? my ass. |
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
Michael Pardee wrote:
> "Broderick Crawford" <bcrawford2150@roadrunner.com> wrote in message > news:46524ea6$0$4873$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >> Useful Info wrote: >>> Read all about it, here: http://Muvy.org >>> >> Don't worry, the US will ban it. They do not want to sell less oil. >> >> > > What on earth makes you think that? Zero consumption vehicles, like > bicycles, are popular and encouraged in the US. I have owned several myself > over nearly half a century and have never encountered a "not enough oil" > goon squad. > > The consumption would not be an issue, but crash-worthiness and emissions > are showstoppers. ZEV and P-ZEV vehicles are in great demand by regulators, > especially in California, but AFAIK diesels are still not available in > passenger cars there because of the emissions. The safety info in the > referenced article is not encouraging either; side impact standards > (mandatory in the US) appear to be lacking: "as safe as a GT sports car > registered for racing". That's damning with faint praise; if they could say > it met US safety standards they certainly would have said so. Fuel economy > really doesn't matter to grieving families. > > Mike > a lot of the recent "safety" stuff is superfluous. it definitely ruins gas mileage. is there a "conspiracy theory" connection? my 2000 civic weighed over 1,000 lbs more than my 89. it takes a /lot/ of extra gas to lug that extra 1,000lbs up a hill, or accelerate from a standstill. the 2000 should have been more economical based on more advanced injection technology, but they're the same because of the extra weight. it was /significantly/ slower. and based on junkyard crashed vehicles i've seen, the 89, without the extra 1,000lbs, holds up just fine in real world collisions, just as well as the 2000. given that both vehicles have the same brakes and stock tires, the 89 will brake more effectively as it's lighter, potentially avoiding more accidents in the first place. bottom line, there's a lot of myth and b.s. out there. joe's comments in the "nothing goes to waste" thread, are a great example. somewhere down the line, he'd read something improperly researched, and accepted it at face value - as we all have a tendency to do. to get to the truth however, you have to dig. need another example? firestone vs. frod on the exploder rollover fiasco. frod won that one, miraculously. there was no science or analysis behind that. bottom line, a vehicle should not roll because of a flat - tread separation or rocket propelled grenade should make no difference - it should /not/ roll. tire manufacturer or tire failure mode is /utterly/ irrelevant. yet a fundamentally unsafe vehicle, one that was /known/ to be fundamentally unsafe before it even hit production, was sold. in quanity. and when it rolled, it was also known that the roof would collapse killing the occupants. yet because there were no suv rollover safety standards, frod elected to not spend the extra $10 on the materials that would have provided even that extra safety. you talk about grieving families - a /lot/ of people have died in that vehicle. safety? my ass. |
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
Are automatic transmissions still more expensive to maintain (i.e. fluid
changes, belt/band adjustments, filter replacements, etc.)? I know of many older vehicles where the manual transmissions have not been serviced during the lifetime of the vehicle. Has this been changed for modern day manual transmissions? I'm not trying to rag on anyone; I just want to know what the manufacturers are doing these days. It seems like a lot of companies are building things that can be sold for very little, but the consumable parts are becoming more expensive than the original item (like printers and 4-blade razors). "Tegger" wrote: > > These days, with computer controls, there is no technical reason a > manual-style transmission cannot be used with an automatic (or > semi-auto) clutch and shifter. And so they do exist: SAAB had the > Sensonic in 1995. Ferrari's F1 team had the Selespeed unit around 1990. |
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
Are automatic transmissions still more expensive to maintain (i.e. fluid
changes, belt/band adjustments, filter replacements, etc.)? I know of many older vehicles where the manual transmissions have not been serviced during the lifetime of the vehicle. Has this been changed for modern day manual transmissions? I'm not trying to rag on anyone; I just want to know what the manufacturers are doing these days. It seems like a lot of companies are building things that can be sold for very little, but the consumable parts are becoming more expensive than the original item (like printers and 4-blade razors). "Tegger" wrote: > > These days, with computer controls, there is no technical reason a > manual-style transmission cannot be used with an automatic (or > semi-auto) clutch and shifter. And so they do exist: SAAB had the > Sensonic in 1995. Ferrari's F1 team had the Selespeed unit around 1990. |
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
Broderick Crawford wrote: > safety, Don't do that. > Drive right and you won't need it. Rubbish, you can be killed by someone driving into you. > Safety is just a protection scheme invented by the American car companies to > keep out the competition. They WILL NOT make fuel efficient vehicles. The problem is that the US idea of safety is 'make it big and heavy'. The proof that this isn't necessary (or even particularly safe either btw) can be seen in every car made outside the USA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro_NCAP http://www.euroncap.com/home.aspx Graham |
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
Broderick Crawford wrote: > safety, Don't do that. > Drive right and you won't need it. Rubbish, you can be killed by someone driving into you. > Safety is just a protection scheme invented by the American car companies to > keep out the competition. They WILL NOT make fuel efficient vehicles. The problem is that the US idea of safety is 'make it big and heavy'. The proof that this isn't necessary (or even particularly safe either btw) can be seen in every car made outside the USA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro_NCAP http://www.euroncap.com/home.aspx Graham |
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
jim beam wrote: > a lot of the recent "safety" stuff is superfluous. You mean in the USA. > it definitely ruins gas mileage. Useless added weight does that. > is there a "conspiracy theory" connection? In the USA when *isn't* there a conspiracy theory to match ? Graham |
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
jim beam wrote: > a lot of the recent "safety" stuff is superfluous. You mean in the USA. > it definitely ruins gas mileage. Useless added weight does that. > is there a "conspiracy theory" connection? In the USA when *isn't* there a conspiracy theory to match ? Graham |
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
jim beam wrote: > need another example? firestone vs. frod on the exploder rollover > fiasco. frod won that one, miraculously. I thought it was Ford's idea to run the tyres with an absurdly low presure? How can Firestone be liable for a design defect by the car maker ? Graham |
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
jim beam wrote: > need another example? firestone vs. frod on the exploder rollover > fiasco. frod won that one, miraculously. I thought it was Ford's idea to run the tyres with an absurdly low presure? How can Firestone be liable for a design defect by the car maker ? Graham |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:48 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands