Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#1761
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>That's lloyd's politics, and that clouds everything he posts.
Personally, I think it is his stupidity. My politics overlap with his on
some issues, and he is one of the people you really don't want on your
side.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>That's lloyd's politics, and that clouds everything he posts.
Personally, I think it is his stupidity. My politics overlap with his on
some issues, and he is one of the people you really don't want on your
side.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#1762
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>That's lloyd's politics, and that clouds everything he posts.
Personally, I think it is his stupidity. My politics overlap with his on
some issues, and he is one of the people you really don't want on your
side.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>That's lloyd's politics, and that clouds everything he posts.
Personally, I think it is his stupidity. My politics overlap with his on
some issues, and he is one of the people you really don't want on your
side.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#1763
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:33:12 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>>When CAFE standards were dreampt up, it was thought that trucks were not a
>>>significant part of the automotive population, trucks were used for work,
>>>not play.
>>
>>And we should have adjusted CAFE for trucks as they started being used as cars
>>are used.
>
>And what would the buyers have done then?
>Gone to >8000lb trucks?
>
>You don't seem to want to let others do what they see as needed,
>instead wanting to decide for everyone what they should have.
>Why should you get to do that?
CAFE for passenger vehicles should be the same for all passenger vehicle.
That seems to be a reasonable desire. I'd question why you want varying
CAFE for passenger vehicles depending on whether the rear seats fold flat.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:33:12 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>>When CAFE standards were dreampt up, it was thought that trucks were not a
>>>significant part of the automotive population, trucks were used for work,
>>>not play.
>>
>>And we should have adjusted CAFE for trucks as they started being used as cars
>>are used.
>
>And what would the buyers have done then?
>Gone to >8000lb trucks?
>
>You don't seem to want to let others do what they see as needed,
>instead wanting to decide for everyone what they should have.
>Why should you get to do that?
CAFE for passenger vehicles should be the same for all passenger vehicle.
That seems to be a reasonable desire. I'd question why you want varying
CAFE for passenger vehicles depending on whether the rear seats fold flat.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#1764
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:33:12 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>>When CAFE standards were dreampt up, it was thought that trucks were not a
>>>significant part of the automotive population, trucks were used for work,
>>>not play.
>>
>>And we should have adjusted CAFE for trucks as they started being used as cars
>>are used.
>
>And what would the buyers have done then?
>Gone to >8000lb trucks?
>
>You don't seem to want to let others do what they see as needed,
>instead wanting to decide for everyone what they should have.
>Why should you get to do that?
CAFE for passenger vehicles should be the same for all passenger vehicle.
That seems to be a reasonable desire. I'd question why you want varying
CAFE for passenger vehicles depending on whether the rear seats fold flat.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:33:12 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>>When CAFE standards were dreampt up, it was thought that trucks were not a
>>>significant part of the automotive population, trucks were used for work,
>>>not play.
>>
>>And we should have adjusted CAFE for trucks as they started being used as cars
>>are used.
>
>And what would the buyers have done then?
>Gone to >8000lb trucks?
>
>You don't seem to want to let others do what they see as needed,
>instead wanting to decide for everyone what they should have.
>Why should you get to do that?
CAFE for passenger vehicles should be the same for all passenger vehicle.
That seems to be a reasonable desire. I'd question why you want varying
CAFE for passenger vehicles depending on whether the rear seats fold flat.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#1765
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:33:12 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>>When CAFE standards were dreampt up, it was thought that trucks were not a
>>>significant part of the automotive population, trucks were used for work,
>>>not play.
>>
>>And we should have adjusted CAFE for trucks as they started being used as cars
>>are used.
>
>And what would the buyers have done then?
>Gone to >8000lb trucks?
>
>You don't seem to want to let others do what they see as needed,
>instead wanting to decide for everyone what they should have.
>Why should you get to do that?
CAFE for passenger vehicles should be the same for all passenger vehicle.
That seems to be a reasonable desire. I'd question why you want varying
CAFE for passenger vehicles depending on whether the rear seats fold flat.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:33:12 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>>When CAFE standards were dreampt up, it was thought that trucks were not a
>>>significant part of the automotive population, trucks were used for work,
>>>not play.
>>
>>And we should have adjusted CAFE for trucks as they started being used as cars
>>are used.
>
>And what would the buyers have done then?
>Gone to >8000lb trucks?
>
>You don't seem to want to let others do what they see as needed,
>instead wanting to decide for everyone what they should have.
>Why should you get to do that?
CAFE for passenger vehicles should be the same for all passenger vehicle.
That seems to be a reasonable desire. I'd question why you want varying
CAFE for passenger vehicles depending on whether the rear seats fold flat.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#1766
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>Today's cars put out less than 1% of the emissions that 68 did.
What are the average emissions for 1968 vehicles in good condition compared
to a 1 yr old 2003 car?
My guess is that you won't look. If you were to look you wouldn't find it.
If you found it, you would find that the 1968 vehicles do not put out 100
times the emissions.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>Today's cars put out less than 1% of the emissions that 68 did.
What are the average emissions for 1968 vehicles in good condition compared
to a 1 yr old 2003 car?
My guess is that you won't look. If you were to look you wouldn't find it.
If you found it, you would find that the 1968 vehicles do not put out 100
times the emissions.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#1767
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>Today's cars put out less than 1% of the emissions that 68 did.
What are the average emissions for 1968 vehicles in good condition compared
to a 1 yr old 2003 car?
My guess is that you won't look. If you were to look you wouldn't find it.
If you found it, you would find that the 1968 vehicles do not put out 100
times the emissions.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>Today's cars put out less than 1% of the emissions that 68 did.
What are the average emissions for 1968 vehicles in good condition compared
to a 1 yr old 2003 car?
My guess is that you won't look. If you were to look you wouldn't find it.
If you found it, you would find that the 1968 vehicles do not put out 100
times the emissions.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#1768
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>Today's cars put out less than 1% of the emissions that 68 did.
What are the average emissions for 1968 vehicles in good condition compared
to a 1 yr old 2003 car?
My guess is that you won't look. If you were to look you wouldn't find it.
If you found it, you would find that the 1968 vehicles do not put out 100
times the emissions.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>Today's cars put out less than 1% of the emissions that 68 did.
What are the average emissions for 1968 vehicles in good condition compared
to a 1 yr old 2003 car?
My guess is that you won't look. If you were to look you wouldn't find it.
If you found it, you would find that the 1968 vehicles do not put out 100
times the emissions.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#1769
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Bill Funk" <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:2qjdpvc5nhqe71r1ej43rg7fhruhu7unlk@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 13:46:12 -0400, "Joe" <me@privacy.net
> (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>
> >"I even put a lower gear set in the rear end two years ago and it still
> >passes w/ flying colors."
> >Not to digress from this shitty thread but why would the lower gear set
in
> >the rear end affect the emissions inspection?
>
> A lower gear ratio (a higher numerical ratio) will make the drive
> wheels turn less per engine revolution.
> Thus, fewer miles traveled per gallon used.
> Thus, more pullution in grams per mile travelled.
>
> This ignores that the engine may be running at an RPM that produces
> less pollution per mile.
Didn't think of that, I've heard engines run cleaner at certain RPM ranges,
but it never really got through the brainpan.
#1770
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Bill Funk" <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:2qjdpvc5nhqe71r1ej43rg7fhruhu7unlk@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 13:46:12 -0400, "Joe" <me@privacy.net
> (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>
> >"I even put a lower gear set in the rear end two years ago and it still
> >passes w/ flying colors."
> >Not to digress from this shitty thread but why would the lower gear set
in
> >the rear end affect the emissions inspection?
>
> A lower gear ratio (a higher numerical ratio) will make the drive
> wheels turn less per engine revolution.
> Thus, fewer miles traveled per gallon used.
> Thus, more pullution in grams per mile travelled.
>
> This ignores that the engine may be running at an RPM that produces
> less pollution per mile.
Didn't think of that, I've heard engines run cleaner at certain RPM ranges,
but it never really got through the brainpan.