| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
More on Govt designed cars
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told NPR’s Michelle Norris yesterday:
“The President has said, and I couldn’t agree more, that what this country needs is a one single national road map that tells automakers who are trying to become solvent again what kind of car it is they need to be designing and building for the American people.” Norris then asked: “Is that the role of Government though? That doesn’t sound like free enterprise.” Jackson responded: “Well it is free enterprise in a way.” |
More on Govt designed cars
On Apr 30, 5:49*am, "Reginald P. Smithers, IIII, Esq."
wrote: EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told NPR’s Michelle Norris yesterday: “The President has said, and I couldn’t agree more, that what this country needs is a one single national road map that tells automakers who are trying to become solvent again what kind of car it is they need to be designing and building for the American people.” Norris then asked: “Is that the role of Government though? That doesn’t sound like free enterprise.” Jackson responded: “Well it is free enterprise in a way.” when the government decides to build a car it will remind me of this: http://people.westminstercollege.edu...l/history2.htm |
More on Govt designed cars
Reginald P. Smithers, IIII, Esq. wrote:
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told NPR’s Michelle Norris yesterday: “The President has said, and I couldn’t agree more, that what this country needs is a one single national road map that tells automakers who are trying to become solvent again what kind of car it is they need to be designing and building for the American people.” Norris then asked: “Is that the role of Government though? That doesn’t sound like free enterprise.” Jackson responded: “Well it is free enterprise in a way.” That is part of the problem for American car makers today, to much government interference. The government mandated mileage requirements force the car industry to build cars that do not fit the requirements of that average American. This mandate forces the auto industry to put billions into research and development to meet the mileage requirement. Then just when the manufactures get close the government changes the requirements. We drive a lot, and when you go down I-69, I-77, I40, I-65 etc. for every small car that practically carries two people at the most you will see 10 of the Van'/Suv type of cars. Recently we went to Cincinnati, and came upon three little mini coopers, two people each, in a caravan, It would have been more efficient to have taken something like my Astro van where all of the people could be together, and communicate on the trip and get 108mpg/person (18 mph X 6 people) than to take three mini getting 80 mpg/person (40 X 2). |
More on Govt designed cars
On Apr 30, 8:11*am, Tim wrote:
On Apr 30, 5:49*am, "Reginald P. Smithers, IIII, Esq." wrote: EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told NPR’s Michelle Norris yesterday: “The President has said, and I couldn’t agree more, that what this country needs is a one single national road map that tells automakers who are trying to become solvent again what kind of car it is they need to be designing and building for the American people.” Norris then asked: “Is that the role of Government though? That doesn’t sound like free enterprise.” Jackson responded: “Well it is free enterprise in a way.” when the government decides to build a car it will remind me of this: http://people.westminstercollege.edu...l/history2.htm At least last night Obama said straight up that he doesn't have any desire for the U.S. to be in the automobile manufacturing business. He's doing what he thinks is necessary. |
More on Govt designed cars
Reginald P. Smithers, IIII, Esq. wrote:
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told NPR’s Michelle Norris yesterday: “The President has said, and I couldn’t agree more, that what this country needs is a one single national road map that tells automakers who are trying to become solvent again what kind of car it is they need to be designing and building for the American people.” Norris then asked: “Is that the role of Government though? That doesn’t sound like free enterprise.” Jackson responded: “Well it is free enterprise in a way.” Makes ol' ankle pants seem like a straight arrow, doesn't it? |
More on Govt designed cars
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 08:42:17 -0700, jps wrote:
They concentrated on SUVs and Trucks until it went bust wihle others who saw the 1000 point writing on the wall designed more efficient vehicles. The Ford F-150 pickup truck has been the best selling vehicle in the country for about thirty years. Ford didn't make people buy them. Casady |
More on Govt designed cars
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:57:34 -0500, Richard Casady
wrote: On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 08:42:17 -0700, jps wrote: They concentrated on SUVs and Trucks until it went bust wihle others who saw the 1000 point writing on the wall designed more efficient vehicles. The Ford F-150 pickup truck has been the best selling vehicle in the country for about thirty years. Ford didn't make people buy them. Casady If they'd have stuck with the F150, Ford would be in fine shape. But they're not in trouble for building F150's are they? And you knew that. |
More on Govt designed cars
On Apr 30, 9:14*am, wrote:
On Apr 30, 8:11*am, Tim wrote: On Apr 30, 5:49*am, "Reginald P. Smithers, IIII, Esq." wrote: EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told NPR’s Michelle Norris yesterday: “The President has said, and I couldn’t agree more, that what this country needs is a one single national road map that tells automakers who are trying to become solvent again what kind of car it is they need to be designing and building for the American people.” Norris then asked: “Is that the role of Government though? That doesn’t sound like free enterprise.” Jackson responded: “Well it is free enterprise in a way.” when the government decides to build a car it will remind me of this: http://people.westminstercollege.edu...l/history2.htm At least last night Obama said straight up that he doesn't have any desire for the U.S. to be in the automobile manufacturing business. He's doing what he thinks is necessary. And that's good! |
More on Govt designed cars
Tim wrote:
On Apr 30, 9:14 am, wrote: On Apr 30, 8:11 am, Tim wrote: On Apr 30, 5:49 am, "Reginald P. Smithers, IIII, Esq." wrote: EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told NPR’s Michelle Norris yesterday: “The President has said, and I couldn’t agree more, that what this country needs is a one single national road map that tells automakers who are trying to become solvent again what kind of car it is they need to be designing and building for the American people.” Norris then asked: “Is that the role of Government though? That doesn’t sound like free enterprise.” Jackson responded: “Well it is free enterprise in a way.” when the government decides to build a car it will remind me of this: http://people.westminstercollege.edu...l/history2.htm At least last night Obama said straight up that he doesn't have any desire for the U.S. to be in the automobile manufacturing business. He's doing what he thinks is necessary. And that's good! Well, I'm not sure GM, Ford or Chrysler have any business being in the auto business anymore. |
More on Govt designed cars
On Apr 30, 2:24*pm, HK wrote:
Tim wrote: On Apr 30, 9:14 am, wrote: On Apr 30, 8:11 am, Tim wrote: On Apr 30, 5:49 am, "Reginald P. Smithers, IIII, Esq." wrote: EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told NPR’s Michelle Norris yesterday: “The President has said, and I couldn’t agree more, that what this country needs is a one single national road map that tells automakers who are trying to become solvent again what kind of car it is they need to be designing and building for the American people.” Norris then asked: “Is that the role of Government though? That doesn’t sound like free enterprise.” Jackson responded: “Well it is free enterprise in a way.” when the government decides to build a car it will remind me of this: http://people.westminstercollege.edu...l/history2.htm At least last night Obama said straight up that he doesn't have any desire for the U.S. to be in the automobile manufacturing business. He's doing what he thinks is necessary. And that's good! Well, I'm not sure GM, Ford or Chrysler have any business being in the auto business anymore.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - That's a GOOD union rep. Or should I say alleged union rep, because we all know that you never tell the truth. |
More on Govt designed cars
"jps" wrote in message ... On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:57:34 -0500, Richard Casady The Ford F-150 pickup truck has been the best selling vehicle in the country for about thirty years. Ford didn't make people buy them. Casady If they'd have stuck with the F150, Ford would be in fine shape. But they're not in trouble for building F150's are they? And you knew that. Ford's overall sales are in the pits, but so are virtually all the manufacturer's (except Porsche, surprisingly). Ford stayed ahead of the curve however, secured private financing and have made long strides in the development of a new generation of fuel efficient automobiles. Some are receiving very high scores in terms of fuel economy and quality standards. I have been impressed with two recent purchases of 2008 models and neither are of the newer class of models. (F-250 truck and Mustang GT). I have to admit, Ford has come a long way in terms of quality. Their stock has also risen over 300 percent in the past few weeks. Eisboch |
More on Govt designed cars
"HK" wrote in message m... Well, I'm not sure GM, Ford or Chrysler have any business being in the auto business anymore. I am happy with Ford. Loaded up with some of their stock several weeks ago when it was at $1.48 per share. Just about broke through 6 bucks today. Eisboch (drives Ford products with a smile) |
More on Govt designed cars
On Apr 30, 4:16*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 11:16:42 -0700, jps wrote: On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:57:34 -0500, Richard Casady wrote: On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 08:42:17 -0700, jps wrote: They concentrated on SUVs and Trucks until it went bust wihle others who saw the 1000 point writing on the wall designed more efficient vehicles. The Ford F-150 pickup truck has been the best selling vehicle in the country for about thirty years. Ford didn't make people buy them. Casady If they'd have stuck with the F150, Ford would be in fine shape. *But they're not in trouble for building F150's are they? And you knew that. The F150 and E150 are still their bread and butter. They dress up that chassis to make the luxury SUVs and fancy vans but they are still F150s when you look under the skin. This old truck is still doing fine for me (1985)http://gfretwell.com/ftp/Brownie.jpg We also have a 2000 Explorer but that is an inferior car chassis in a truck suit.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - That's a nice truck! |
More on Govt designed cars
Reginald P. Smithers, IIII, Esq. wrote:
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told NPR’s Michelle Norris yesterday: “The President has said, and I couldn’t agree more, that what this country needs is a one single national road map that tells automakers who are trying to become solvent again what kind of car it is they need to be designing and building for the American people.” Norris then asked: “Is that the role of Government though? That doesn’t sound like free enterprise.” Jackson responded: “Well it is free enterprise in a way.” Interesting that a Google search for that quote only shows hits from the right wing sites, like the Heritage Foundation. NPR didn't show a hit. I spent way too much time on what appears to be more misleading right wing out of context quotes. Let's say it is an actual quote. Is it free enterprise, even a little, for a private company to ask the government for a bail out? No, it's not, "even a little bit." Try a google search for part of the quote and see if you can come up with a hit other than the usual right wing nut cases. |
More on Govt designed cars
Jim wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers, IIII, Esq. wrote: EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told NPR’s Michelle Norris yesterday: “The President has said, and I couldn’t agree more, that what this country needs is a one single national road map that tells automakers who are trying to become solvent again what kind of car it is they need to be designing and building for the American people.” Norris then asked: “Is that the role of Government though? That doesn’t sound like free enterprise.” Jackson responded: “Well it is free enterprise in a way.” Interesting that a Google search for that quote only shows hits from the right wing sites, like the Heritage Foundation. NPR didn't show a hit. I spent way too much time on what appears to be more misleading right wing out of context quotes. Let's say it is an actual quote. Is it free enterprise, even a little, for a private company to ask the government for a bail out? No, it's not, "even a little bit." Try a google search for part of the quote and see if you can come up with a hit other than the usual right wing nut cases. Free enterprise...that's when corporations fleece the public and pass the profits onto their execs and shareholders and screw the public and pass the losses onto the taxpayers. I was in favor of letting the financial services corporations and partnerships fail - the banks, the brokerage houses, AIG, whatever. They should have been allowed to go down the tubes. Obviously it takes nothing but money to start up a new financial institution, and the failed institutions would have been replaced by now. But failed manufacturing companies? Their jobs and products are almost impossible to replace these days. Manufacturing is important. Paper shoveling on wall street is not. |
More on Govt designed cars
HK wrote:
Jim wrote: Reginald P. Smithers, IIII, Esq. wrote: EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told NPR’s Michelle Norris yesterday: “The President has said, and I couldn’t agree more, that what this country needs is a one single national road map that tells automakers who are trying to become solvent again what kind of car it is they need to be designing and building for the American people.” Norris then asked: “Is that the role of Government though? That doesn’t sound like free enterprise.” Jackson responded: “Well it is free enterprise in a way.” Interesting that a Google search for that quote only shows hits from the right wing sites, like the Heritage Foundation. NPR didn't show a hit. I spent way too much time on what appears to be more misleading right wing out of context quotes. Let's say it is an actual quote. Is it free enterprise, even a little, for a private company to ask the government for a bail out? No, it's not, "even a little bit." Try a google search for part of the quote and see if you can come up with a hit other than the usual right wing nut cases. Free enterprise...that's when corporations fleece the public and pass the profits onto their execs and shareholders and screw the public and pass the losses onto the taxpayers. I was in favor of letting the financial services corporations and partnerships fail - the banks, the brokerage houses, AIG, whatever. They should have been allowed to go down the tubes. Obviously it takes nothing but money to start up a new financial institution, and the failed institutions would have been replaced by now. But failed manufacturing companies? Their jobs and products are almost impossible to replace these days. Manufacturing is important. Paper shoveling on wall street is not. I once questioned someone with a supposed quote on one of Obama's policies, asking for a source. He stated that it was no different than my complaining that a book in the fiction section wasn't true. It seems to be a tactic to do some creative writing, then wait for that quote to turn up on a heavily partisan site, and it makes it's way into a lot of people's minds as fact. Manufacturing is important, so let's see Detroit do some, and stop trying to selling us cars made in Mexico, but parked next to a big American flag (as they did with the last Camaro.) |
More on Govt designed cars
wrote in message ... On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 11:16:42 -0700, jps wrote: On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:57:34 -0500, Richard Casady wrote: On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 08:42:17 -0700, jps wrote: They concentrated on SUVs and Trucks until it went bust wihle others who saw the 1000 point writing on the wall designed more efficient vehicles. The Ford F-150 pickup truck has been the best selling vehicle in the country for about thirty years. Ford didn't make people buy them. Casady If they'd have stuck with the F150, Ford would be in fine shape. But they're not in trouble for building F150's are they? And you knew that. The F150 and E150 are still their bread and butter. They dress up that chassis to make the luxury SUVs and fancy vans but they are still F150s when you look under the skin. This old truck is still doing fine for me (1985) http://gfretwell.com/ftp/Brownie.jpg It's amazing how many of the F-150s of that era are still on the road and run well. Cars of that vintage didn't, due to all the emission control stuff, but trucks were exempt and as a result run well and long. Eisboch |
More on Govt designed cars
wrote in message ... On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 17:14:31 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 11:16:42 -0700, jps wrote: On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:57:34 -0500, Richard Casady wrote: On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 08:42:17 -0700, jps wrote: They concentrated on SUVs and Trucks until it went bust wihle others who saw the 1000 point writing on the wall designed more efficient vehicles. The Ford F-150 pickup truck has been the best selling vehicle in the country for about thirty years. Ford didn't make people buy them. Casady If they'd have stuck with the F150, Ford would be in fine shape. But they're not in trouble for building F150's are they? And you knew that. The F150 and E150 are still their bread and butter. They dress up that chassis to make the luxury SUVs and fancy vans but they are still F150s when you look under the skin. This old truck is still doing fine for me (1985) http://gfretwell.com/ftp/Brownie.jpg It's amazing how many of the F-150s of that era are still on the road and run well. Cars of that vintage didn't, due to all the emission control stuff, but trucks were exempt and as a result run well and long. Eisboch F150s are half ton, you had to be over a ton to get the exemption. This has the air pump and the cat converter. Emission control really became a non-issue in the 80s when they started using electronic fuel and spark management systems. The bad reputation came from the 70s vehicles that were just adding emission control devices to old technology engines. Your right. I am a decade off. I used to have a '87 Ford F-150 with the 300ci six. It was a great truck and very reliable. Eisboch |
More on Govt designed cars
Richard Casady wrote:
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 08:42:17 -0700, jps wrote: They concentrated on SUVs and Trucks until it went bust wihle others who saw the 1000 point writing on the wall designed more efficient vehicles. The Ford F-150 pickup truck has been the best selling vehicle in the country for about thirty years. Ford didn't make people buy them. We buy them because we like them. When you get in a crash in them you survive, unlike a Mini-Cooper, Honda Fit, Chevy Volt or other tiny econo box. Overheard at the wake... ....he got great mileage up until the day that semi ran him over. |
More on Govt designed cars
"BAR" wrote in message ... Richard Casady wrote: On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 08:42:17 -0700, jps wrote: They concentrated on SUVs and Trucks until it went bust wihle others who saw the 1000 point writing on the wall designed more efficient vehicles. The Ford F-150 pickup truck has been the best selling vehicle in the country for about thirty years. Ford didn't make people buy them. We buy them because we like them. When you get in a crash in them you survive, unlike a Mini-Cooper, Honda Fit, Chevy Volt or other tiny econo box. Overheard at the wake... ...he got great mileage up until the day that semi ran him over. As if your F150 would survive a head-on with an 18 wheeler. |
More on Govt designed cars
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 19:13:52 -0400, wrote:
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 17:50:59 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 17:14:31 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: wrote in message m... On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 11:16:42 -0700, jps wrote: On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:57:34 -0500, Richard Casady wrote: On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 08:42:17 -0700, jps wrote: They concentrated on SUVs and Trucks until it went bust wihle others who saw the 1000 point writing on the wall designed more efficient vehicles. The Ford F-150 pickup truck has been the best selling vehicle in the country for about thirty years. Ford didn't make people buy them. Casady If they'd have stuck with the F150, Ford would be in fine shape. But they're not in trouble for building F150's are they? And you knew that. The F150 and E150 are still their bread and butter. They dress up that chassis to make the luxury SUVs and fancy vans but they are still F150s when you look under the skin. This old truck is still doing fine for me (1985) http://gfretwell.com/ftp/Brownie.jpg It's amazing how many of the F-150s of that era are still on the road and run well. Cars of that vintage didn't, due to all the emission control stuff, but trucks were exempt and as a result run well and long. Eisboch F150s are half ton, you had to be over a ton to get the exemption. This has the air pump and the cat converter. Emission control really became a non-issue in the 80s when they started using electronic fuel and spark management systems. The bad reputation came from the 70s vehicles that were just adding emission control devices to old technology engines. Your right. I am a decade off. I used to have a '87 Ford F-150 with the 300ci six. It was a great truck and very reliable. Eisboch That is what this one has. 180 k miles. The only problem we had with it was it was a northern truck that moved south and it overheated when I was pulling my boat. From my experience with an E150 I knew the fix was a 3 core radiator instead of the standard 2 core. I found a guy who paid me $50 for the old 2 core so it wasn't that big a deal. This is our spare vehicle, only used for hauling stuff and moving the boat. Like my old E150, everyone I know has borrowed it for something. I have a 1967 Chevy C-20 with a 327 and a dump bed. Three speed column shift had a seizure 10 years ago so I cut a hole in the floor and installed a hurst shift kit. Three on the floor. Truck looks like crap but runs like a champ and does whatever I need. I keep the old shift lever on the dash board just in case I need to disarm a rabid gun owner. |
More on Govt designed cars
On Apr 30, 10:53*pm, jps wrote:
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 19:13:52 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 17:50:59 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 17:14:31 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: wrote in message m... On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 11:16:42 -0700, jps wrote: On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:57:34 -0500, Richard Casady wrote: On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 08:42:17 -0700, jps wrote: They concentrated on SUVs and Trucks until it went bust wihle others who saw the 1000 point writing on the wall designed more efficient vehicles. The Ford F-150 pickup truck has been the best selling vehicle in the country for about thirty years. Ford didn't make people buy them. Casady If they'd have stuck with the F150, Ford would be in fine shape. *But they're not in trouble for building F150's are they? And you knew that. The F150 and E150 are still their bread and butter. They dress up that chassis to make the luxury SUVs and fancy vans but they are still F150s when you look under the skin. This old truck is still doing fine for me (1985) http://gfretwell.com/ftp/Brownie.jpg It's amazing how many of the F-150s of that era are still on the road and run well. Cars of that vintage didn't, due to all the emission control stuff, but trucks were exempt and as a result run well and long. Eisboch F150s are half ton, you had to be over a ton to get the exemption. This has the air pump and the cat converter. Emission control really became a non-issue in the 80s when they started using electronic fuel and spark management systems. The bad reputation came from the 70s vehicles that were just adding emission control devices to old technology engines. Your right. *I am a decade off. I used to have a '87 Ford F-150 with the 300ci six. * *It was a great truck and very reliable. Eisboch That is what this one has. 180 k miles. The only problem we had with it was it was a northern truck that moved south and it overheated when I was pulling my boat. From my experience with an E150 I knew the fix was a 3 core radiator instead of the standard 2 core. I found a guy who paid me $50 for the old 2 core so it wasn't that big a deal. This is our spare vehicle, only used for hauling stuff and moving the boat. Like my old E150, everyone I know has borrowed it for something. I have a 1967 Chevy C-20 with a 327 and a dump bed. *Three speed column shift had a seizure 10 years ago so I cut a hole in the floor and installed a hurst shift kit. *Three on the floor. *Truck looks like crap but runs like a champ and does whatever I need. I keep the old shift lever on the dash board just in case I need to disarm a rabid gun owner. I didn't know there was such a thing as a "rabid" gun. Don't you mean "Rabbit gun?" You know, like the one this hunter is toting? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKPOh...eature=related |
More on Govt designed cars
On May 1, 12:01*am, Tim wrote:
On Apr 30, 10:53*pm, jps wrote: On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 19:13:52 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 17:50:59 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 17:14:31 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: wrote in message m... On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 11:16:42 -0700, jps wrote: On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:57:34 -0500, Richard Casady wrote: On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 08:42:17 -0700, jps wrote: They concentrated on SUVs and Trucks until it went bust wihle others who saw the 1000 point writing on the wall designed more efficient vehicles. The Ford F-150 pickup truck has been the best selling vehicle in the country for about thirty years. Ford didn't make people buy them.. Casady If they'd have stuck with the F150, Ford would be in fine shape. *But they're not in trouble for building F150's are they? And you knew that. The F150 and E150 are still their bread and butter. They dress up that chassis to make the luxury SUVs and fancy vans but they are still F150s when you look under the skin. This old truck is still doing fine for me (1985) http://gfretwell.com/ftp/Brownie.jpg It's amazing how many of the F-150s of that era are still on the road and run well. Cars of that vintage didn't, due to all the emission control stuff, but trucks were exempt and as a result run well and long. Eisboch F150s are half ton, you had to be over a ton to get the exemption. This has the air pump and the cat converter. Emission control really became a non-issue in the 80s when they started using electronic fuel and spark management systems. The bad reputation came from the 70s vehicles that were just adding emission control devices to old technology engines. Your right. *I am a decade off. I used to have a '87 Ford F-150 with the 300ci six. * *It was a great truck and very reliable. Eisboch That is what this one has. 180 k miles. The only problem we had with it was it was a northern truck that moved south and it overheated when I was pulling my boat. From my experience with an E150 I knew the fix was a 3 core radiator instead of the standard 2 core. I found a guy who paid me $50 for the old 2 core so it wasn't that big a deal. This is our spare vehicle, only used for hauling stuff and moving the boat. Like my old E150, everyone I know has borrowed it for something. I have a 1967 Chevy C-20 with a 327 and a dump bed. *Three speed column shift had a seizure 10 years ago so I cut a hole in the floor and installed a hurst shift kit. *Three on the floor. *Truck looks like crap but runs like a champ and does whatever I need. I keep the old shift lever on the dash board just in case I need to disarm a rabid gun owner. I didn't know there was such a thing as a "rabid" gun. Don't you mean *"Rabbit gun?" You know, like the one this hunter is toting? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKPOh...eature=related I dont need to disarm em. They take one look at what I drive and its like "Holy ****, you drive that thang" and from then on were best buds. |
More on Govt designed cars
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 21:14:37 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote: On May 1, 12:01*am, Tim wrote: On Apr 30, 10:53*pm, jps wrote: On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 19:13:52 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 17:50:59 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 17:14:31 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: wrote in message m... On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 11:16:42 -0700, jps wrote: On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:57:34 -0500, Richard Casady wrote: On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 08:42:17 -0700, jps wrote: They concentrated on SUVs and Trucks until it went bust wihle others who saw the 1000 point writing on the wall designed more efficient vehicles. The Ford F-150 pickup truck has been the best selling vehicle in the country for about thirty years. Ford didn't make people buy them. Casady If they'd have stuck with the F150, Ford would be in fine shape. *But they're not in trouble for building F150's are they? And you knew that. The F150 and E150 are still their bread and butter. They dress up that chassis to make the luxury SUVs and fancy vans but they are still F150s when you look under the skin. This old truck is still doing fine for me (1985) http://gfretwell.com/ftp/Brownie.jpg It's amazing how many of the F-150s of that era are still on the road and run well. Cars of that vintage didn't, due to all the emission control stuff, but trucks were exempt and as a result run well and long. Eisboch F150s are half ton, you had to be over a ton to get the exemption. This has the air pump and the cat converter. Emission control really became a non-issue in the 80s when they started using electronic fuel and spark management systems. The bad reputation came from the 70s vehicles that were just adding emission control devices to old technology engines. Your right. *I am a decade off. I used to have a '87 Ford F-150 with the 300ci six. * *It was a great truck and very reliable. Eisboch That is what this one has. 180 k miles. The only problem we had with it was it was a northern truck that moved south and it overheated when I was pulling my boat. From my experience with an E150 I knew the fix was a 3 core radiator instead of the standard 2 core. I found a guy who paid me $50 for the old 2 core so it wasn't that big a deal. This is our spare vehicle, only used for hauling stuff and moving the boat. Like my old E150, everyone I know has borrowed it for something. I have a 1967 Chevy C-20 with a 327 and a dump bed. *Three speed column shift had a seizure 10 years ago so I cut a hole in the floor and installed a hurst shift kit. *Three on the floor. *Truck looks like crap but runs like a champ and does whatever I need. I keep the old shift lever on the dash board just in case I need to disarm a rabid gun owner. I didn't know there was such a thing as a "rabid" gun. Don't you mean *"Rabbit gun?" You know, like the one this hunter is toting? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKPOh...eature=related I dont need to disarm em. They take one look at what I drive and its like "Holy ****, you drive that thang" and from then on were best buds. A heap for a truck definitely makes folks think twice about gettin' too close. Before I had the exhaust redone it had a nasty hole pre-muffler that was good for attracting attention and scaring the crap out of nearby drivers and pedestrians. |
More on Govt designed cars
jps wrote:
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 19:13:52 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 17:50:59 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: wrote in message ... On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 17:14:31 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: wrote in message ... On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 11:16:42 -0700, jps wrote: On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:57:34 -0500, Richard Casady wrote: On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 08:42:17 -0700, jps wrote: They concentrated on SUVs and Trucks until it went bust wihle others who saw the 1000 point writing on the wall designed more efficient vehicles. The Ford F-150 pickup truck has been the best selling vehicle in the country for about thirty years. Ford didn't make people buy them. Casady If they'd have stuck with the F150, Ford would be in fine shape. But they're not in trouble for building F150's are they? And you knew that. The F150 and E150 are still their bread and butter. They dress up that chassis to make the luxury SUVs and fancy vans but they are still F150s when you look under the skin. This old truck is still doing fine for me (1985) http://gfretwell.com/ftp/Brownie.jpg It's amazing how many of the F-150s of that era are still on the road and run well. Cars of that vintage didn't, due to all the emission control stuff, but trucks were exempt and as a result run well and long. Eisboch F150s are half ton, you had to be over a ton to get the exemption. This has the air pump and the cat converter. Emission control really became a non-issue in the 80s when they started using electronic fuel and spark management systems. The bad reputation came from the 70s vehicles that were just adding emission control devices to old technology engines. Your right. I am a decade off. I used to have a '87 Ford F-150 with the 300ci six. It was a great truck and very reliable. Eisboch That is what this one has. 180 k miles. The only problem we had with it was it was a northern truck that moved south and it overheated when I was pulling my boat. From my experience with an E150 I knew the fix was a 3 core radiator instead of the standard 2 core. I found a guy who paid me $50 for the old 2 core so it wasn't that big a deal. This is our spare vehicle, only used for hauling stuff and moving the boat. Like my old E150, everyone I know has borrowed it for something. I have a 1967 Chevy C-20 with a 327 and a dump bed. Three speed column shift had a seizure 10 years ago so I cut a hole in the floor and installed a hurst shift kit. Three on the floor. Truck looks like crap but runs like a champ and does whatever I need. I keep the old shift lever on the dash board just in case I need to disarm a rabid gun owner. If you had a gasoline electric a 30 year old truck would be in the junk by now because of the cost of replacing the battery. From what I have heard they have to be replaced every 6 to 8 years depending on use. With that rate of depreciation they become disposable. Every one know the cost of replacing batteries in your old laptop. |
More on Govt designed cars
On Apr 30, 5:50*pm, "Eisboch" wrote:
wrote in message ... On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 17:14:31 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 11:16:42 -0700, jps wrote: On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:57:34 -0500, Richard Casady wrote: On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 08:42:17 -0700, jps wrote: They concentrated on SUVs and Trucks until it went bust wihle others who saw the 1000 point writing on the wall designed more efficient vehicles. The Ford F-150 pickup truck has been the best selling vehicle in the country for about thirty years. Ford didn't make people buy them. Casady If they'd have stuck with the F150, Ford would be in fine shape. *But they're not in trouble for building F150's are they? And you knew that. The F150 and E150 are still their bread and butter. They dress up that chassis to make the luxury SUVs and fancy vans but they are still F150s when you look under the skin. This old truck is still doing fine for me (1985) http://gfretwell.com/ftp/Brownie.jpg It's amazing how many of the F-150s of that era are still on the road and run well. Cars of that vintage didn't, due to all the emission control stuff, but trucks were exempt and as a result run well and long. Eisboch F150s are half ton, you had to be over a ton to get the exemption. This has the air pump and the cat converter. Emission control really became a non-issue in the 80s when they started using electronic fuel and spark management systems. The bad reputation came from the 70s vehicles that were just adding emission control devices to old technology engines. Your right. *I am a decade off. I used to have a '87 Ford F-150 with the 300ci six. * *It was a great truck and very reliable. Eisboch- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - 300 was a great engine, so was the 250. Had a '69 Fairlane that had a 250 in it to start. It was a fine engine, but the persons before me abused it, ran it low on oiil etc. until I got my hands on a 302 V8 to put in it! |
More on Govt designed cars
On Apr 30, 4:54*pm, HK wrote:
Jim wrote: Reginald P. Smithers, IIII, Esq. wrote: EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told NPR’s Michelle Norris yesterday: “The President has said, and I couldn’t agree more, that what this country needs is a one single national road map that tells automakers who are trying to become solvent again what kind of car it is they need to be designing and building for the American people.” Norris then asked: “Is that the role of Government though? That doesn’t sound like free enterprise.” Jackson responded: “Well it is free enterprise in a way.” Interesting that a Google search for that quote only shows hits from the right wing sites, like the Heritage Foundation. *NPR didn't show a hit. |
More on Govt designed cars
BAR wrote:
wrote: Bull****. Obama is taking away property form their lawful owners and giving it to who he believes should posses that property. I see some lawsuits in the near future. The 4th Amendment comes to mind. I'm no expert here, but, isn't this what bankruptcy courts do every day? |
More on Govt designed cars
On Fri, 01 May 2009 08:26:44 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote:
If you had a gasoline electric a 30 year old truck would be in the junk by now because of the cost of replacing the battery. From what I have heard they have to be replaced every 6 to 8 years depending on use. With that rate of depreciation they become disposable. Every one know the cost of replacing batteries in your old laptop. Geez, if everyone was as negative about new technologies as you are, we would still be driving horse and buggies, and forget computers. Still, they are now getting 100,000 miles out of present battery technology, and with standardization, and future innovations, battery life will improve and cost will come down. Remember the cost of those older laptops? |
More on Govt designed cars
thunder wrote:
On Fri, 01 May 2009 08:26:44 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: If you had a gasoline electric a 30 year old truck would be in the junk by now because of the cost of replacing the battery. From what I have heard they have to be replaced every 6 to 8 years depending on use. With that rate of depreciation they become disposable. Every one know the cost of replacing batteries in your old laptop. Geez, if everyone was as negative about new technologies as you are, we would still be driving horse and buggies, and forget computers. Still, they are now getting 100,000 miles out of present battery technology, and with standardization, and future innovations, battery life will improve and cost will come down. Remember the cost of those older laptops? What's really sad to me is that in the late 1970's, GM or Ford or Chrysler could have decided to allocate enough funds to develop the sort of batteries we need now to make "electric" cars affordable and practical. Twenty five years of solid, advancing development would have made a real difference for us by now. |
More on Govt designed cars
On Fri, 01 May 2009 11:41:34 -0400, HK wrote:
What's really sad to me is that in the late 1970's, GM or Ford or Chrysler could have decided to allocate enough funds to develop the sort of batteries we need now to make "electric" cars affordable and practical. Twenty five years of solid, advancing development would have made a real difference for us by now. Well, if we are talking past history, imagine if Reagan hadn't dismantled Carter's initiative to be energy independent by the year 2000. It probably would have saved us from three wars, and prevented the largest transfer of wealth in human history. But hey, history is a bore. |
More on Govt designed cars
thunder wrote:
On Fri, 01 May 2009 08:26:44 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: If you had a gasoline electric a 30 year old truck would be in the junk by now because of the cost of replacing the battery. From what I have heard they have to be replaced every 6 to 8 years depending on use. With that rate of depreciation they become disposable. Every one know the cost of replacing batteries in your old laptop. Geez, if everyone was as negative about new technologies as you are, we would still be driving horse and buggies, and forget computers. Still, they are now getting 100,000 miles out of present battery technology, and with standardization, and future innovations, battery life will improve and cost will come down. Remember the cost of those older laptops? Gas/eclectic technology is not new. It is at least 80 years old in this country. The first gas (fossil fuel)/electric systems appeared on the railroads in the thirties and became that standard engine about 1960. They are now the only system used on the major railroad lines. Chemistry dictates what can be done with batteries, and they can not be improved beyond a point that is dictated by the atomic structure of the atoms being used in the battery. ie. Nickel hydride, zinc/carbon etc. It does not matter what system is used for propulsion of a vehicle there is given amount of energy needed to move that vehicle. This is defined by basic physical equations on mass and velocity. What ever means of propulsion that is used the energy to propel that vehicle, it must be created, either in a fixed power plant, or on the vehicle with a gasoline or nuclear system. Batteries are storage system and not an energy source. As for the 100,000 miles, I have never had a vehicle that I did not have over 150000 miles on when I got rid of it. (a couple with 200000) The way cars are used today that is not abnormal. This means that when ever you bought a used car you will be looking at replacing the batteries. This will cause cars to depreciate even faster than today. |
More on Govt designed cars
"HK" wrote in message ... What's really sad to me is that in the late 1970's, GM or Ford or Chrysler could have decided to allocate enough funds to develop the sort of batteries we need now to make "electric" cars affordable and practical. Twenty five years of solid, advancing development would have made a real difference for us by now. Research and development of high density batteries for the automotive market has been going on for at least that long Harry. Technical breakthroughs come from many sources other than the automobile manufacturers, although they often help fund it. In the business I was in I visited two private research facilities that were working on high output density lithium batteries for the automotive market and promise of electric and hybrid cars. This was in the early 80's. One company was a relatively new start-up, the other an existing large battery manufacturer. I remember it well because the clean rooms in which the batteries were made and assembled had to be kept at 5 percent relative humidity or less because lithium is so reactive with water or water vapor. After putting on the "bunny suit" and entering the clean room area, you involuntarily gasped for a breath, the air was so dry. The scope of development is better done within organizations that specialize in the technology. Lithium batteries have come a long way, but they are still not really practical unless we all radically change our driving habits. And they still have to be charged which requires energy. Fuel cell technology is the future. Eisboch |
More on Govt designed cars
Keith Nuttle wrote:
thunder wrote: On Fri, 01 May 2009 08:26:44 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: If you had a gasoline electric a 30 year old truck would be in the junk by now because of the cost of replacing the battery. From what I have heard they have to be replaced every 6 to 8 years depending on use. With that rate of depreciation they become disposable. Every one know the cost of replacing batteries in your old laptop. Geez, if everyone was as negative about new technologies as you are, we would still be driving horse and buggies, and forget computers. Still, they are now getting 100,000 miles out of present battery technology, and with standardization, and future innovations, battery life will improve and cost will come down. Remember the cost of those older laptops? Gas/eclectic technology is not new. It is at least 80 years old in this country. The first gas (fossil fuel)/electric systems appeared on the railroads in the thirties and became that standard engine about 1960. They are now the only system used on the major railroad lines. Chemistry dictates what can be done with batteries, and they can not be improved beyond a point that is dictated by the atomic structure of the atoms being used in the battery. ie. Nickel hydride, zinc/carbon etc. It does not matter what system is used for propulsion of a vehicle there is given amount of energy needed to move that vehicle. This is defined by basic physical equations on mass and velocity. What ever means of propulsion that is used the energy to propel that vehicle, it must be created, either in a fixed power plant, or on the vehicle with a gasoline or nuclear system. Batteries are storage system and not an energy source. As for the 100,000 miles, I have never had a vehicle that I did not have over 150000 miles on when I got rid of it. (a couple with 200000) The way cars are used today that is not abnormal. This means that when ever you bought a used car you will be looking at replacing the batteries. This will cause cars to depreciate even faster than today. I made a mistake in my previous post. I should have specified commercial use for the gas/electric system. Gas/electric system have been used in the submarines in since 1900. |
OT electric cars was govt cars
On Fri, 01 May 2009 12:47:35 -0400, wrote:
On Fri, 01 May 2009 11:41:34 -0400, HK wrote: thunder wrote: On Fri, 01 May 2009 08:26:44 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: If you had a gasoline electric a 30 year old truck would be in the junk by now because of the cost of replacing the battery. From what I have heard they have to be replaced every 6 to 8 years depending on use. With that rate of depreciation they become disposable. Every one know the cost of replacing batteries in your old laptop. Geez, if everyone was as negative about new technologies as you are, we would still be driving horse and buggies, and forget computers. Still, they are now getting 100,000 miles out of present battery technology, and with standardization, and future innovations, battery life will improve and cost will come down. Remember the cost of those older laptops? What's really sad to me is that in the late 1970's, GM or Ford or Chrysler could have decided to allocate enough funds to develop the sort of batteries we need now to make "electric" cars affordable and practical. Twenty five years of solid, advancing development would have made a real difference for us by now. Battery technology has moved about as fast as the "battery" industry can move, not for cars but for portable electronics. Cars can bootstrap off of that. The real problem is electric cars only move that load from the gas pump to the electrical grid where we burn coal. Cars are cleaner than coal. Probably not for CO2. Coal power plant efficiency is about 40%. Gas engines are about 20%. Those figures are from http://www.defenddemocracy.org/index...3 &Itemid=102 There are other cites out there that might conflict, but because IC engines are so inefficient in converting fuel to power, there are "surprising" advantages to electric power. In the U.S electric power transmission losses are about 7%. That's pretty well established. There are misconceptions about this because most people don't realize how inefficient gasoline engines are compared to modern electric generation plants burning fossil fuels. Even though mileage is way up from older cars/engines, IC is still real inefficient. I remember reading about a possible cure for heat loss 40 years ago in Pop Mech. High-temp ceramic engines. Guess that was just a pipe-dream. As a former boilerman, I can tell you that even the Navy burning cheap black oil took heat conservation very seriously in the design of steam powerplants. The Navy mostly gave up on steam for propulsion, but I bet their fuel costs are much higher than in the past. Steam is still king for power generating plants. Of course there are other emissions from coal/gas plants, but scrubbing can eliminate most of them. People think electric cars are "free" but your typical little electric econobox will take somewhere between 20kwh and 40kwh depending on typical battery packs (14 or 28 6v batteries @ 240ah each). My electric bill would be $5 for the 28 battery "100 mile" car. Since the same Honda Civic (a popular electric conversion) would get about 30MPG on gas, it is pretty much a wash ... I didn't pay the road tax yet. Some states are already trying to find a way to road tax electrics. Better batteries might extend range by storing more energy but you still have to pay for the energy. I don't think anybody that puts a plug in or flips a switch thinks electricity is free. They've paid plenty of electric bills. Current lead batteries, a very mature technology, are only expected to have 600-800 charge cycles and they are $100 each. That adds $3.50 to your $5 charge or 8 1/2 cents a mile for the 100 mile car. The Li/on batteries in the Tesla are so expensive they don't even like to talk about it. I know these are off the cuff numbers but I have been looking into converting my old Prelude (a Civic in a sport jacket) to electric and I have been looking at what is out there. Even if I am off by a factor of two it is still hard to get the numbers to come out. It all depends on the electricity and gas prices. If gas goes to 5 bucks a gallon and the electric rates stay constant it's a new ball game. With the nukes in Florida I think your rates are low, aren't they? When you read the web sites that cater to electric car enthusiasts they all tell you, "don't plan on this being a cheap hobby". I think the Prius batteries have proven to go well over 100k miles. Aren't the newer models plug-in? If they are, can't they be used for retrofitting the home-mades? --Vic |
OT electric cars was govt cars
|
More on Govt designed cars
jps wrote:
A heap for a truck definitely makes folks think twice about gettin' too close. Before I had the exhaust redone it had a nasty hole pre-muffler that was good for attracting attention and scaring the crap out of nearby drivers and pedestrians. Did it sound like a gunshot? Johnson |
OT electric cars was govt cars
|
More on Govt designed cars
"Johnson" wrote in message ... jps wrote: A heap for a truck definitely makes folks think twice about gettin' too close. Before I had the exhaust redone it had a nasty hole pre-muffler that was good for attracting attention and scaring the crap out of nearby drivers and pedestrians. Did it sound like a gunshot? Johnson Remember what we did as kids with new licenses? Drove Dad's car down the street at speed and shut the ignition switch off for a few seconds, then turned it back on. The build up of fuel in the exhaust system usually blew a hole in the muffler if you were successful. Instant hot rod. Eisboch |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:51 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com