"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...

They are also changing the level of sulphur that can be allowed in
diesel fuel which is going to make it more expensive.

Already, in MA and CT you can't purchase a diesel powered car and I
understand that NY and NJ are next on the list.

Dummies.


It is dumb. As much as I like big old big block gassers, the future is
going to be diesel or diesel electric.
I am sold on clean, quiet diesels. In boats they are workhorses. Mrs.E.'s
little Sprinter RV has a 154 hp Mercedes diesel in it and it is the sweetest
running, quiet diesel engine I've ever heard.

As I mentioned, Europeans by and large buy diesel powered vehicles. So why
do we have to screw it up on this side of the pond?

RCE

On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 01:31:06 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing
wrote:

Already, in MA and CT you can't purchase a diesel powered car and I
understand that NY and NJ are next on the list.

Dummies.

Yep, very short sighted, but what's new.

I swear that to become a politician in NY or NJ you first have to fail
a basic intelligence test, and prove that you did it without cheating.

I thought CT was better but maybe not.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

People make comments about my needing to buy a more fuel efficient
vehicle, I currently drive an 2001 F150 SuperCrew with a 5.4L V8 gas
sucking engine. I pay for insurance, fuel and maintenance. I have no
monthly payment which costs me about $350 per month. There is no way the
total cost of ownership of a new vehicle is going to cost less.

This is an example of wrong thinking. Your ability to afford the gasoline
has no bearing whatsoever on the national need to get a handle on oil
consumption. It's a common response, though.

Wrong thinking? What is the national need to get a handle on oil
consumption? We could sove the problem by building nuclear plants all over
the country and reduce our consumption of oil dramatically. I suppose that
you will get on board with that, won't you? Or, are you more interested in
controlling others behavior because they are not doing what you believe they
should be doing?

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 13:42:05 -0500, "Bert Robbins"
wrote:


"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 15:11:10 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


Ford's development of a hybrid SUV is an attempt to control behavior?
Please
explain this conclusion. They'll still be selling the "regular" kind,
for
people who actually need a truck-style power train, but sales of those
will
be reduced to levels they were at 30 years ago, when they were mostly
purchased by people who needed the 4WD and the gear ratio.

Don't get mired in that paragraph. Explain your conclusion.

I was reading in the Times this morning about hybrids and the really
curious part is that they aren't that much more "efficient" than a
regular car - maybe a mpg or two at most.

Emissions are about the same.

However the cost of operation of a hybrid is greater than the cost of a
fuel
only vehicle. The thing people forget is that the batteries only last so
long and then then have to be replaced and the old batteries need to be
disposed of properly.

People make comments about my needing to buy a more fuel efficient
vehicle,
I currently drive an 2001 F150 SuperCrew with a 5.4L V8 gas sucking
engine.
I pay for insurance, fuel and maintenance. I have no monthly payment which
costs me about $350 per month. There is no way the total cost of ownership
of a new vehicle is going to cost less.

I have an 2000 F-250 Super Duty diesel with the 7.3 liter engine and
it's more efficient over time, cost me less in fuel, than the previous
F-350 gas pickup.

But, the cost of your diesel cost you about $5,000 more than the gas engine.
Have you recouped that initial cost yet?

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 15:11:10 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


Ford's development of a hybrid SUV is an attempt to control behavior?
Please
explain this conclusion. They'll still be selling the "regular" kind,
for
people who actually need a truck-style power train, but sales of
those will
be reduced to levels they were at 30 years ago, when they were mostly
purchased by people who needed the 4WD and the gear ratio.

Don't get mired in that paragraph. Explain your conclusion.

I was reading in the Times this morning about hybrids and the really
curious part is that they aren't that much more "efficient" than a
regular car - maybe a mpg or two at most.

Emissions are about the same.

So far....but they will address the need. It's obvious that they see
it, or they wouldn't be spending money trying to build something
better. It has to be obvious to anyone but a total idiot that the vast
majority of SUVs are NOT being purchased by people who tow things or
clamber over bolders and drive through streams for fun. Luggage space
and driving in snow are two reasons which hold no water, so we can
safely eliminate those.

Some of us don't fit into regular cars. My legs and torso are long most
of tyical sedans I can't fit into. Therefore, I buy vehicles where I
can comfortably sit in the drivers seat and operate the vehicle without
contorting my body.

I'm not talking about changes to the size of the driver's seat, or the
SUV in general. According to an interview with a Ford representative on
the radio news a month ago, neither are they. Their goal is to maintain
some of what they know to be the main selling points for many buyers:
Size.

What they ARE trying to do is two things: Build a hybrid SUV (what's
under the hood, in other words), and make major changes to the drive
train. Besides aerodynamics, those are obviously the two major
detractors from better gas mileage. The majority of non-sports-oriented
buyers have no need for 4WD or towing capability.

You keep making judgments about the appropriateness of vehicles for
people, why? Last time I checked I had the freedom to purchase any
vehicle I want. If I want a big gas sucking pig of a vehicle what
business is it of yours? It is my money?

You keep responding this way. Why? Nobody except you has suggested that
when Ford produces a leaner SUV, you will be unable to buy the original
variety. If you disagree, please provide quotes or other evidence of where
I've said this. I suspect you have problems when I say most people don't
need the truck capabilities, but in fact, it is true.

This country is not based upon needs, it is based upon wants and desires.

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..

You keep making judgments about the appropriateness of vehicles for
people, why? Last time I checked I had the freedom to purchase any
vehicle I want. If I want a big gas sucking pig of a vehicle what
business is it of yours? It is my money?

You keep responding this way. Why? Nobody except you has suggested that
when Ford produces a leaner SUV, you will be unable to buy the original
variety. If you disagree, please provide quotes or other evidence of
where I've said this. I suspect you have problems when I say most people
don't need the truck capabilities, but in fact, it is true.

This country is not based upon needs, it is based upon wants and desires.


Have you ever known anyone for whom an SUV seemed all wrong, and asked them
why they bought one? I have. Their wants and desires are simple, usually:
They want a boxy vehicle that's higher off the ground because they feel it's
safer in collisions. It probably is. And, they want more luggage space. Not
seating. Luggage space. (Uncovered luggage is actually dangerous, but never
mind that for the moment.

These people do not fantasize about driving over rocks and through streams,
like you see in the commercials. They would not know the difference between
a 4WD 8-cylinder SUV and a 2WD 6 cylinder model. They just want their boxy
up-off-the-ground car. They can have that wish, in a vehicle that uses less
fuel.

As far as needs, an awful lot of people are apparently realizing that SUVs
did not meet their needs, and in return for this disappointment they were
paying outrageous fuel bills. Around here, they're lined up by the dozens at
used car lots. A buddy of mine works for one of the larger Chevy dealers
here. He says these SUVs are not lease returns - they're mostly trades for
smaller cars.

Apparently, the public is more able to make good decisions than you give
them credit for.

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 22:42:39 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

Gas isn't the way to go.

Maybe, but it will happen.

No it won't.

I didn't mean gas - I meant "a better vehicle". Obviously, I don't think
we'll see an SUV the size of a Ford Explorer, that's as efficient as a
Toyota Prius, but I *do* think we'll see one that's 20-25% more efficient
than what's offered now.

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

People make comments about my needing to buy a more fuel efficient
vehicle, I currently drive an 2001 F150 SuperCrew with a 5.4L V8 gas
sucking engine. I pay for insurance, fuel and maintenance. I have no
monthly payment which costs me about $350 per month. There is no way the
total cost of ownership of a new vehicle is going to cost less.

This is an example of wrong thinking. Your ability to afford the gasoline
has no bearing whatsoever on the national need to get a handle on oil
consumption. It's a common response, though.

Wrong thinking? What is the national need to get a handle on oil
consumption?

Just a few weeks back, your lord and master said in a speech that we were
addicted to oil and needed to reduce our consumption. Was he wrong? Are you
doubting your commander in chief?


We could sove the problem by building nuclear plants all over the country
and reduce our consumption of oil dramatically. I suppose that you will
get on board with that, won't you?

No. Not enough of our electricity is generated with oil. Vehicles and
heating are the major consumers.


Or, are you more interested in controlling others behavior because they
are not doing what you believe they should be doing?

I don't know where you get this "controlling others" bull**** from. Let's
see if you can answer a straight question. You walk into a Ford dealership
and say you want an SUV. The salesman explains that they now offer two
categories. One has a V-8 and 4 wheel drive. The other comes only with a V-6
and 2 wheel drive. The two varieties are the exact same size inside, and
offer all the same accessory & trim packages. He asks you a few questions
about whether you'll be towing anything, and where you do most of your
driving. He then points out that based on your answers, you'll be lucky to
get 14 mpg with the V-8, but you'll easily get 20-24 with the V-6. Then, he
says "But, it's up to you, obviously".

Are you telling me that by offering you a choice, he is controlling your
behavior?

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 04:01:31 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

Are you telling me that by offering you a choice, he is controlling your
behavior?

Doug, your cabin fever is showing again. Why not shovel the driveway,
go down to the corner store and buy a nice boating magazine. It will
calm you down and get you thinking "on topic".


I'm totally on topic here, Wayne.

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 21:32:17 GMT, Don White wrote:

Don White wrote:
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 13:42:05 -0500, "Bert Robbins"
wrote:


"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 15:11:10 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


Ford's development of a hybrid SUV is an attempt to control
behavior? Please
explain this conclusion. They'll still be selling the "regular"
kind, for
people who actually need a truck-style power train, but sales of
those will
be reduced to levels they were at 30 years ago, when they were mostly
purchased by people who needed the 4WD and the gear ratio.

Don't get mired in that paragraph. Explain your conclusion.


I was reading in the Times this morning about hybrids and the really
curious part is that they aren't that much more "efficient" than a
regular car - maybe a mpg or two at most.

Emissions are about the same.


However the cost of operation of a hybrid is greater than the cost of
a fuel only vehicle. The thing people forget is that the batteries
only last so long and then then have to be replaced and the old
batteries need to be disposed of properly.

People make comments about my needing to buy a more fuel efficient
vehicle, I currently drive an 2001 F150 SuperCrew with a 5.4L V8 gas
sucking engine. I pay for insurance, fuel and maintenance. I have no
monthly payment which costs me about $350 per month. There is no way
the total cost of ownership of a new vehicle is going to cost less.



I have an 2000 F-250 Super Duty diesel with the 7.3 liter engine and
it's more efficient over time, cost me less in fuel, than the previous
F-350 gas pickup.


These little diesel cars are getting popular around here.
(regular self service gas = $1.07 per liter)
I see England has 4 door versions. All we need is a little SUV with a
1.5 liter diesel engine.

oopps...for got the link
http://www.thesmart.ca/index.cfm?ID=4720

The streets of Rome were full of these little guys last time I was there.
They probably wouldn't pass all of our 'crash-worthy' tests, but then
neither do motorcycles!
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************