On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 12:08:57 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote:

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 07:52:35 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:


Probably not, but how about the moron who buys a full-size diesel pickup

and

adds 1100 lbs of chrome accessories, but tows nothing, hauls nothing, and
doesn't need the truck for work in any way, shape or form. Just wants it
because the vertical back window shows off his collection of 100 decals
he
bought at state fairs.



IT is his truck. And he probably uses less fuel than if he towed a boat
with it. More fuel while towing and even more fuel in the boat.




Lights on, nobody home. That truck uses more fuel than various other
pimp-mobiles he could've chosen. You know that. If you don't, go look at
some mileage stickers at dealerships.



One of the reasons why I *didn't* buy some monster new truck to haul
around our Parker is because most of the time such a vehicle wouldn't be
hauling around anything but itself and my butt. Now, my gut is too
large, but my butt is not. For the little bit of trailering I do,
there's no need for Monster Truck.

If you only pull a trailer twice a year to pull your boat to and from
the marina, then you can rent a truck. On the other hand, if you tow a
lot, then you have to buy a vehicle that will handle your towed load.
Undersizing the tow vehicle is simply not safe and it subjects it to
increased stress and seriously shortens useful life.

Some people (like me) have two vehicles. I use my truck for utility
and pulling, and I drive a 50 MPG Metro, for daily commuting. Since I
drive 88 miles per day, the savings in fuel, by driving the small car,
makes it economically sensible to do it. Other people, who don't drive
as far, will not save enough to pay for the small car or the insurance
on it.

YMMV

Dave

I knew there was a good reason I bought that Mustang!

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes