|
"John H" wrote in message
... Let's assume that it's something people normally want ALL the time, John. Coffee, shoes, whatever. Don't hand me junior high school economic theories. Well, if we assume the demand hasn't changed, and the supply has diminished, then prices will go up. In the case of oil, the demand has greatly increased over the past several years (almost as bad as outsourcing!). The junior high economic theories are, at least, rational. In case Fruitz pretends not to notice the question I just asked him, I'll ask you: Please indicate specifics as to WHERE you believe this increased demand is coming from. If you choose to repeat "China...", as others have, please provide data. |
On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 16:28:07 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "John H" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 14:58:56 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "P. Fritz" wrote in message ... Black markets tend to develop when guvmints interfer with supply and demand..... A black market is just one example of an adjustment made in response to an unstable environment. War is another example of an unstable environment, and both have an effect on prices. Ask anyone who was an adult during the 2nd world war. In what way did they affect prices? Simple version: In response to shortages, the prices of such things as raw metal products and coffee increased. Now, the price of oil is increasing due to PERCEIVED stressors on the market. I say "perceived" because there is NO supply shortage, and the mythical demand you like to talk about is not enough to explain the drastic price increases over the past couple of years. China's mythical? -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 16:32:50 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "John H" wrote in message .. . Let's assume that it's something people normally want ALL the time, John. Coffee, shoes, whatever. Don't hand me junior high school economic theories. Well, if we assume the demand hasn't changed, and the supply has diminished, then prices will go up. In the case of oil, the demand has greatly increased over the past several years (almost as bad as outsourcing!). The junior high economic theories are, at least, rational. In case Fruitz pretends not to notice the question I just asked him, I'll ask you: Please indicate specifics as to WHERE you believe this increased demand is coming from. If you choose to repeat "China...", as others have, please provide data. "From: Suchita Vemuri Staff Writer 2005-02-24 02:27:38 Hi Joseph, China's oil demand has been growing at an average 7% since 1990, and while it's now the second largest oil consumer after the USA, its consumption in 2004 was around six million barrels per day, against a little over 20 in the USA. But if the current trend continues, China's consumption is expected to equal that of the USA by the mid-2020s." For stats and graphs go to: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/...&id=NAM&id=ASI Is this what you'd call 'mythical demand'? -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 16:32:50 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "John H" wrote in message .. . Let's assume that it's something people normally want ALL the time, John. Coffee, shoes, whatever. Don't hand me junior high school economic theories. Well, if we assume the demand hasn't changed, and the supply has diminished, then prices will go up. In the case of oil, the demand has greatly increased over the past several years (almost as bad as outsourcing!). The junior high economic theories are, at least, rational. In case Fruitz pretends not to notice the question I just asked him, I'll ask you: Please indicate specifics as to WHERE you believe this increased demand is coming from. If you choose to repeat "China...", as others have, please provide data. Chinese oil consumption has accounted for nearly 40 percent of the growth in global oil consumption since 2000. That rise in demand has come not from the growing number of cars on China's roads but from energy-hungry power plants and industrial boilers. Even if the country's economic growth slows, as many experts expect, the rapid pace of urbanization will continue increasing China's oil consumption, possibly doubling it within a decade. From: http://www.energybulletin.net/414.html Do you need more? -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 16:32:50 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "John H" wrote in message .. . Let's assume that it's something people normally want ALL the time, John. Coffee, shoes, whatever. Don't hand me junior high school economic theories. Well, if we assume the demand hasn't changed, and the supply has diminished, then prices will go up. In the case of oil, the demand has greatly increased over the past several years (almost as bad as outsourcing!). The junior high economic theories are, at least, rational. In case Fruitz pretends not to notice the question I just asked him, I'll ask you: Please indicate specifics as to WHERE you believe this increased demand is coming from. If you choose to repeat "China...", as others have, please provide data. Here's another, just in case you still believe in the 'mythical china' theory: "Yang isn't the only one made uncomfortable by his globetrotting. CNOOC's aggressive efforts to secure reliable supplies of oil and natural gas around the world reflect just how strong China's thirst for fossil fuels has become. Motorists bemoaning high prices at the pumps—oil rose to a record $55 a barrel on Oct. 15, up 65% this year—can with some justification point an accusatory finger toward the mainland. Its booming economy and burgeoning appetite for cars and other modern conveniences have caused energy demand to soar. China's oil imports doubled over the past five years and surged nearly 40% in the first half of 2004 alone. These increases vaulted the mainland ahead of Japan and into second place among the world's biggest oil consumers, behind only the U.S. Of course, there are numerous other factors driving the price of crude, among them supply hiccups caused by chaos in Iraq, political and economic turmoil in oil-producing nations such as Nigeria and Russia, hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and fears of terrorism. "It is neither fair nor accurate to blame China for most of the rise in oil prices," says Jeffrey Logan of the Paris-based International Energy Agency (IEA). But with oil in short supply—currently, producers are pumping just 1 million barrels more than the 81 million barrels being consumed worldwide every day—growing demand from China is clearly having an unwelcome impact. The country accounted for about one-third of the increase in world oil consumption this year, more than any other single nation." From: http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazi...725174,00.html Note, China's oil imports rose by 40% in the first *half* of 2004 alone! Now, perhaps you'll be so kind as to show me the data supporting the 'Bush deficit did it' theory. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
"Doug Kanter" wrote: In case Fruitz pretends not to notice the question I just asked him, I'll ask you: Please indicate specifics as to WHERE you believe this increased demand is coming from. If you choose to repeat "China...", as others have, please provide data. Where have you been hiding, Kanter? Been in a cave the last few years? Here's just one of *dozens* of articles with the knowledge you seem to lack. Please educate yourself. http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update45.htm Here's a quote: "With oil, the United States is still solidly in the lead with consumption triple that of China's-20.4 million barrels per day to 6.5 million barrels in 2004. But while oil use in the United States expanded by only 15 percent from 1994 to 2004, use in the new industrial giant more than doubled. Having recently eclipsed Japan as an oil consumer, China is now second only to the United States." China is waking up, they are hungry, and they are rapidly building their industrial machine. Their escalating economy is allowing China's "Joe Average" to own a car for the first time. How in the hell do you think they manage to make *everything* that Wal-Mart sells? By rubbing two sticks together? Sheeesh... Jack |
"Jack Goff" wrote in message m... "Doug Kanter" wrote: In case Fruitz pretends not to notice the question I just asked him, I'll ask you: Please indicate specifics as to WHERE you believe this increased demand is coming from. If you choose to repeat "China...", as others have, please provide data. Where have you been hiding, Kanter? Been in a cave the last few years? Here's just one of *dozens* of articles with the knowledge you seem to lack. Please educate yourself. http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update45.htm Here's a quote: "With oil, the United States is still solidly in the lead with consumption triple that of China's-20.4 million barrels per day to 6.5 million barrels in 2004. But while oil use in the United States expanded by only 15 percent from 1994 to 2004, use in the new industrial giant more than doubled. Having recently eclipsed Japan as an oil consumer, China is now second only to the United States." China is waking up, they are hungry, and they are rapidly building their industrial machine. Their escalating economy is allowing China's "Joe Average" to own a car for the first time. How in the hell do you think they manage to make *everything* that Wal-Mart sells? By rubbing two sticks together? Sheeesh... Jack It is a double whammy. First the demand for oil for their production needs which in turn produces profits, wealth and the demand for cars where none previously existed. Their demand for gasoline alone will continue to increase at an amazing rate. From http://www.altassets.com/casefor/sec...005/nz6592.php " To date, China has only had 1.2 cars per 100 inhabitants. The corresponding figure for western industrial countries is over fifty. The growth anticipated in the automotive industry by all observers will result from the sharp rise in per capita income in the booming Chinese economy: if a mere 3.7 percent of all Chinese earned enough money to buy a car in 2002, the figure will reach 13 percent in 2010. In absolute terms, this implies a growth of today's 50 million potential buyers to more than 170 million. This stratum of the upwardly mobile is expected to lead to an increase in new car sales in China to 7 million vehicles by 2010, making China the second largest market for automobiles in the world and almost half as large as the US market. " But to some this is all Bush's fault. LOL! |
Jack Goff wrote:
Here's a quote: "With oil, the United States is still solidly in the lead with consumption triple that of China's-20.4 million barrels per day to 6.5 million barrels in 2004. But while oil use in the United States expanded by only 15 percent from 1994 to 2004, use in the new industrial giant more than doubled. Having recently eclipsed Japan as an oil consumer, China is now second only to the United States." China is waking up, they are hungry, and they are rapidly building their industrial machine. Their escalating economy is allowing China's "Joe Average" to own a car for the first time. How in the hell do you think they manage to make *everything* that Wal-Mart sells? By rubbing two sticks together? Sheeesh... Jack If every American trashed their gas guzzling SUV's and purchased a Honda Civic or smaller, that would make up for China's demand. |
"Don White" wrote in message ... Jack Goff wrote: Here's a quote: "With oil, the United States is still solidly in the lead with consumption triple that of China's-20.4 million barrels per day to 6.5 million barrels in 2004. But while oil use in the United States expanded by only 15 percent from 1994 to 2004, use in the new industrial giant more than doubled. Having recently eclipsed Japan as an oil consumer, China is now second only to the United States." China is waking up, they are hungry, and they are rapidly building their industrial machine. Their escalating economy is allowing China's "Joe Average" to own a car for the first time. How in the hell do you think they manage to make *everything* that Wal-Mart sells? By rubbing two sticks together? Sheeesh... Jack If every American trashed their gas guzzling SUV's and purchased a Honda Civic or smaller, that would make up for China's demand. What about you Canadians and your gas sucking vehicles? You can't make gas from HydroQuebec. |
On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 19:18:33 GMT, Don White wrote:
Jack Goff wrote: Here's a quote: "With oil, the United States is still solidly in the lead with consumption triple that of China's-20.4 million barrels per day to 6.5 million barrels in 2004. But while oil use in the United States expanded by only 15 percent from 1994 to 2004, use in the new industrial giant more than doubled. Having recently eclipsed Japan as an oil consumer, China is now second only to the United States." China is waking up, they are hungry, and they are rapidly building their industrial machine. Their escalating economy is allowing China's "Joe Average" to own a car for the first time. How in the hell do you think they manage to make *everything* that Wal-Mart sells? By rubbing two sticks together? Sheeesh... Jack If every American trashed their gas guzzling SUV's and purchased a Honda Civic or smaller, that would make up for China's demand. Better let Harry do the talking, and you do the follow up. Works better that way. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
"John H" wrote in message ... On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 16:28:07 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H" wrote in message . .. On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 14:58:56 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "P. Fritz" wrote in message ... Black markets tend to develop when guvmints interfer with supply and demand..... A black market is just one example of an adjustment made in response to an unstable environment. War is another example of an unstable environment, and both have an effect on prices. Ask anyone who was an adult during the 2nd world war. In what way did they affect prices? Simple version: In response to shortages, the prices of such things as raw metal products and coffee increased. Now, the price of oil is increasing due to PERCEIVED stressors on the market. I say "perceived" because there is NO supply shortage, and the mythical demand you like to talk about is not enough to explain the drastic price increases over the past couple of years. China's mythical? No, John. But when you listen to the grownup news, you'll hear from people IN THE OIL INDUSTRY that China's demand has NOT soared over the past 2-3 years enough to have the effect attributed to it. I know it's easy to say "China", but you really need to expend a bit more effort to understand this. |
"John H" wrote in message ... On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 16:32:50 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H" wrote in message . .. Let's assume that it's something people normally want ALL the time, John. Coffee, shoes, whatever. Don't hand me junior high school economic theories. Well, if we assume the demand hasn't changed, and the supply has diminished, then prices will go up. In the case of oil, the demand has greatly increased over the past several years (almost as bad as outsourcing!). The junior high economic theories are, at least, rational. In case Fruitz pretends not to notice the question I just asked him, I'll ask you: Please indicate specifics as to WHERE you believe this increased demand is coming from. If you choose to repeat "China...", as others have, please provide data. "From: Suchita Vemuri Staff Writer 2005-02-24 02:27:38 Hi Joseph, China's oil demand has been growing at an average 7% since 1990, and while it's now the second largest oil consumer after the USA, its consumption in 2004 was around six million barrels per day, against a little over 20 in the USA. But if the current trend continues, China's consumption is expected to equal that of the USA by the mid-2020s." For stats and graphs go to: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/...&id=NAM&id=ASI Is this what you'd call 'mythical demand'? Is what's on that page the only number you consider important? Notice I said "that page", not "that site". |
On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 20:57:46 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "John H" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 16:28:07 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H" wrote in message ... On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 14:58:56 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "P. Fritz" wrote in message ... Black markets tend to develop when guvmints interfer with supply and demand..... A black market is just one example of an adjustment made in response to an unstable environment. War is another example of an unstable environment, and both have an effect on prices. Ask anyone who was an adult during the 2nd world war. In what way did they affect prices? Simple version: In response to shortages, the prices of such things as raw metal products and coffee increased. Now, the price of oil is increasing due to PERCEIVED stressors on the market. I say "perceived" because there is NO supply shortage, and the mythical demand you like to talk about is not enough to explain the drastic price increases over the past couple of years. China's mythical? No, John. But when you listen to the grownup news, you'll hear from people IN THE OIL INDUSTRY that China's demand has NOT soared over the past 2-3 years enough to have the effect attributed to it. I know it's easy to say "China", but you really need to expend a bit more effort to understand this. You are absolutely right on this one Doug. The perceived "shortages" and "shortfalls" are totally bogus - it's a speculator's market and it's driving the economy into the dumpster along the way. Don't you find it interesting that there is more distillate fuels in the supply chain and less demand than today and we're paying more for it? If I had to bet on who's and wherefores, Goldman/Sachs is first on the list followed closely by Soros. It's not like they haven't bankrupted countries before you know. |
"John H" wrote in message ... Of course, there are numerous other factors driving the price of crude, among them supply hiccups caused by chaos in Iraq, political and economic turmoil in oil-producing nations such as Nigeria and Russia, hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and fears of terrorism. Do you understand what they mean by "hiccups", how they're produced in terms of commodity prices, and why the last 10 "hiccups" were never retracted? Note, China's oil imports rose by 40% in the first *half* of 2004 alone! Now, perhaps you'll be so kind as to show me the data supporting the 'Bush deficit did it' theory. Somebody else brought up the deficit theory. |
"Jack Goff" wrote in message
m... How in the hell do you think they manage to make *everything* that Wal-Mart sells? By rubbing two sticks together? Sheeesh... Interesting logic. You might be right. But, you may want to be careful about pushing this theory any further. The origins come back to bite the last 3 presidents right in the ass. |
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
... You are absolutely right on this one Doug. The perceived "shortages" and "shortfalls" are totally bogus - it's a speculator's market and it's driving the economy into the dumpster along the way. It's really no different than the stock market. The nightly news says "IBM announced lower-than-expected earnings and the DJIA responded by losing 300 points". Who's dumb enough to think that by "investors", they mean people like you and I? It's the same kind of institutional investors who move the prices of oil, orange juice and pork. |
Bert Robbins wrote:
What about you Canadians and your gas sucking vehicles? You can't make gas from HydroQuebec. Hydro Quebec produces electricity Bertie. It's what your fridge needs to keep your booze cold. |
John H wrote:
Better let Harry do the talking, and you do the follow up. Works better that way. Ok...let's substitute 'high powered yellow Mustang' for SUV.... make more sense? |
"Don White" wrote in message ... John H wrote: Better let Harry do the talking, and you do the follow up. Works better that way. Ok...let's substitute 'high powered yellow Mustang' for SUV.... make more sense? Don, it's unfair to have a memory, and also to use it. |
"Doug Kanter" wrote: "Jack Goff" wrote: How in the hell do you think they manage to make *everything* that Wal-Mart sells? By rubbing two sticks together? Sheeesh... Interesting logic. You might be right. Ahh.. light in a dark place... But, you may want to be careful about pushing this theory any further. The origins come back to bite the last 3 presidents right in the ass. ....then goes right back out. It's not a "theory" that the Chinese are increasing their usage of petroleum at a rate far surpassing any other countries. They are the ones creating the new, expanding demand for petro. That's what you were questioning. It's a fact. If you have data to refute this, point us all to it. Otherwise, shut your pie hole. You're proving to be almost as dumb as Kevin. |
"Don White" wrote: If every American trashed their gas guzzling SUV's and purchased a Honda Civic or smaller, that would make up for China's demand. There's no shortage of big 4x4s or SUV's in Canaduh, Don. What's in your.. oops, your mom's driveway? |
On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 22:23:32 GMT, Don White wrote:
John H wrote: Better let Harry do the talking, and you do the follow up. Works better that way. Ok...let's substitute 'high powered yellow Mustang' for SUV.... make more sense? I'm getting over 21mpg in the Mustang. Not bad. It's not really high powered though, only a 4.6L. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 22:23:32 GMT, Don White wrote:
John H wrote: Better let Harry do the talking, and you do the follow up. Works better that way. Ok...let's substitute 'high powered yellow Mustang' for SUV.... make more sense? Stick with letting Harry go first! -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 19:58:39 -0400, John H
wrote: On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 22:23:32 GMT, Don White wrote: John H wrote: Better let Harry do the talking, and you do the follow up. Works better that way. Ok...let's substitute 'high powered yellow Mustang' for SUV.... make more sense? I'm getting over 21mpg in the Mustang. Not bad. It's not really high powered though, only a 4.6L. I thought your Mustang was a GT? |
"John H" wrote in message ... On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 22:23:32 GMT, Don White wrote: John H wrote: Better let Harry do the talking, and you do the follow up. Works better that way. Ok...let's substitute 'high powered yellow Mustang' for SUV.... make more sense? Stick with letting Harry go first! The child, Don, is exerting his independence and he can't handle it yet! |
"Jack Goff" wrote in message m... "Doug Kanter" wrote: In case Fruitz pretends not to notice the question I just asked him, I'll ask you: Please indicate specifics as to WHERE you believe this increased demand is coming from. If you choose to repeat "China...", as others have, please provide data. Where have you been hiding, Kanter? Been in a cave the last few years? Here's just one of *dozens* of articles with the knowledge you seem to lack. Please educate yourself. http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update45.htm Here's a quote: "With oil, the United States is still solidly in the lead with consumption triple that of China's-20.4 million barrels per day to 6.5 million barrels in 2004. But while oil use in the United States expanded by only 15 percent from 1994 to 2004, use in the new industrial giant more than doubled. Having recently eclipsed Japan as an oil consumer, China is now second only to the United States." China is waking up, they are hungry, and they are rapidly building their industrial machine. Their escalating economy is allowing China's "Joe Average" to own a car for the first time. How in the hell do you think they manage to make *everything* that Wal-Mart sells? By rubbing two sticks together? Sheeesh... Liebrals are blind to anything they cannot blame Bush for. Jack |
"HarryKrause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "P. Fritz" wrote in message ... "Tim" wrote in message ups.com... Jun 24, 7:57 am show options Newsgroups: rec.boats From: - Find messages by this author Date: 24 Jun 2005 04:57:44 -0700 Local: Fri,Jun 24 2005 7:57 am Subject: Oil reaches record $60 a barrel Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse *JimH* wrote: wrote in message oups.com... That's: Bad for Bush Bad for the US Bad for boating. :-( I agree. And what exactly did Bush have to do with this? Here you go Jim: Don't Blame OPEC; Higher Gas Prices Are Almost Entirely Bush's Fault Dave Lindorff, ILCA Associate Member What is making oil so expensive is not energy policy or even SUV's, dangerous as those are for the environment. It's Bush's massive deficits and his willful destruction of the US dollar that has gas selling at $2.30 a gallon and rising. There's been a lot of hand-wringing going on among economists and politicians, and a lot of fuming at the gas pump by consumers over the soaring price of oil over the last two years. Increasingly, concern is being expressed by treasury officials and economists about the negative impact soaring oil prices and related gas prices could have on the overall economy. Politicians--especially Republicans--are also fretting, since the thousands of extra dollars consumers are now spending on electricity, home heating and gasoline have, for all but the wealthiest taxpayers, more than cancelled out any minimal benefits they saw from the president's tax cuts. What's wrong with this picture? The focus of all this anger and angst is oil prices. As a result, everyone is looking at culprits in the wrong place, blaming wasteful energy use, OPEC production quotas, monopolistic oil companies and/or conniving oil traders. In fact the real culprit behind these higher oil prices is the Bush Administration, which, thanks to its massive deficits and tax give-aways to the rich and corporations, to its war spending, and to its failure to combat unprecedented and ever-larger trade deficits, has been causing the dollar to plunge in value. Oil is a commodity and it is priced in dollars. If dollars decline in value, then the price of oil will rise in inverse proportion. Man, this gets old. did you ever consider supply and demand? or would that get in your way. Like T. Boone Pickens (oil tycoon) said: : When you need 36 mil. Barrel of crude to run a country, and can only get 34 Mil barrel, what does that do to pricing? I know, I know. That doesn't fit any kind of political logic. because it is one of a few circumstances of reasoning. I know, know...it's so much easier (and to some its much more fun) to bash Bush........ that little meanie.....LOL And if it is the declining value of the dollar.....why have gas prices risen when the dollar has gained in the last view weeks.........damn facts always get in the way of the liebrals. Sheesh. I haven't been following this thread, but is someone stupid enough to suggest that a weak dollar is responsible for high oil prices...rather than increased demand (from countries like China), and instability in the oil producing countries? In the Middle East and in South America, a lot of that "unrest" can be traced directly to President Idiot, er, Bush. There was no unrest in the Middle East or South America prior to Bush taking office, right? It's the combination of increased demand *and* the instability. We can't do anything about China using more oil...but we can do something to reshape the Middle East. |
On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 00:03:50 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing
wrote: On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 19:58:39 -0400, John H wrote: On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 22:23:32 GMT, Don White wrote: John H wrote: Better let Harry do the talking, and you do the follow up. Works better that way. Ok...let's substitute 'high powered yellow Mustang' for SUV.... make more sense? I'm getting over 21mpg in the Mustang. Not bad. It's not really high powered though, only a 4.6L. I thought your Mustang was a GT? It is. The GT has a 4.6L V-8, with an advertised 300hp. I don't do a lot of drag racing though. (Although, I *know* it'll do 110mph in 3rd gear - without redlining.) I've only done that once. That was enough. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 20:46:06 -0400, John H
wrote: On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 00:03:50 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 19:58:39 -0400, John H wrote: On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 22:23:32 GMT, Don White wrote: John H wrote: Better let Harry do the talking, and you do the follow up. Works better that way. Ok...let's substitute 'high powered yellow Mustang' for SUV.... make more sense? I'm getting over 21mpg in the Mustang. Not bad. It's not really high powered though, only a 4.6L. I thought your Mustang was a GT? It is. The GT has a 4.6L V-8, with an advertised 300hp. I don't do a lot of drag racing though. (Although, I *know* it'll do 110mph in 3rd gear - without redlining.) I've only done that once. That was enough. Fuel Injected? I didn't know you could push the Ford standard 4.6 L to 300 hp without altering something major. Supposedly this is Ford's standard engine package across the product line. Interesting. |
"John H" wrote in message ... On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 00:03:50 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 19:58:39 -0400, John H wrote: On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 22:23:32 GMT, Don White wrote: John H wrote: Better let Harry do the talking, and you do the follow up. Works better that way. Ok...let's substitute 'high powered yellow Mustang' for SUV.... make more sense? I'm getting over 21mpg in the Mustang. Not bad. It's not really high powered though, only a 4.6L. I thought your Mustang was a GT? It is. The GT has a 4.6L V-8, with an advertised 300hp. I don't do a lot of drag racing though. (Although, I *know* it'll do 110mph in 3rd gear - without redlining.) I've only done that once. That was enough. My baby blue '72 Stang with a 2 bbl 302 V8 with a C4 running bias-ply tires with a few lines going down the middle wiould easily do 110. I really miss her! |
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 20:46:06 -0400, John H wrote: On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 00:03:50 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 19:58:39 -0400, John H wrote: On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 22:23:32 GMT, Don White wrote: John H wrote: Better let Harry do the talking, and you do the follow up. Works better that way. Ok...let's substitute 'high powered yellow Mustang' for SUV.... make more sense? I'm getting over 21mpg in the Mustang. Not bad. It's not really high powered though, only a 4.6L. I thought your Mustang was a GT? It is. The GT has a 4.6L V-8, with an advertised 300hp. I don't do a lot of drag racing though. (Although, I *know* it'll do 110mph in 3rd gear - without redlining.) I've only done that once. That was enough. Fuel Injected? I didn't know you could push the Ford standard 4.6 L to 300 hp without altering something major. Supposedly this is Ford's standard engine package across the product line. Interesting. http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2...05/244450.html http://www.fast-autos.net/ford/05fordmustang.html And you can push it to 500 hp http://www.tuningnews.net/news/04110...g-projects.php |
In some engines you can obtain a higher horsepower by inserting a bigger
micro chip. I know they do this on the big rigs via the ecm. Dont know if this is how ford does it or not. Back in the old days you would have to get a bigger cam, run solid lifters and machine the head to obtain that kind of horsepower. Ed "Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 20:46:06 -0400, John H wrote: On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 00:03:50 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 19:58:39 -0400, John H wrote: On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 22:23:32 GMT, Don White wrote: John H wrote: Better let Harry do the talking, and you do the follow up. Works better that way. Ok...let's substitute 'high powered yellow Mustang' for SUV.... make more sense? I'm getting over 21mpg in the Mustang. Not bad. It's not really high powered though, only a 4.6L. I thought your Mustang was a GT? It is. The GT has a 4.6L V-8, with an advertised 300hp. I don't do a lot of drag racing though. (Although, I *know* it'll do 110mph in 3rd gear - without redlining.) I've only done that once. That was enough. Fuel Injected? I didn't know you could push the Ford standard 4.6 L to 300 hp without altering something major. Supposedly this is Ford's standard engine package across the product line. Interesting. |
On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 00:56:10 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing
wrote: On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 20:46:06 -0400, John H wrote: On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 00:03:50 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 19:58:39 -0400, John H wrote: On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 22:23:32 GMT, Don White wrote: John H wrote: Better let Harry do the talking, and you do the follow up. Works better that way. Ok...let's substitute 'high powered yellow Mustang' for SUV.... make more sense? I'm getting over 21mpg in the Mustang. Not bad. It's not really high powered though, only a 4.6L. I thought your Mustang was a GT? It is. The GT has a 4.6L V-8, with an advertised 300hp. I don't do a lot of drag racing though. (Although, I *know* it'll do 110mph in 3rd gear - without redlining.) I've only done that once. That was enough. Fuel Injected? I didn't know you could push the Ford standard 4.6 L to 300 hp without altering something major. Supposedly this is Ford's standard engine package across the product line. Interesting. Jim beat me to it, but yeah, with a couple or three or four thousand dollars, the thing can be taken to 500 or so hp without too much trouble. Of course, the warranty may not be worth much. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 21:10:29 -0400, "*JimH*" wrote:
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 20:46:06 -0400, John H wrote: On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 00:03:50 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 19:58:39 -0400, John H wrote: On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 22:23:32 GMT, Don White wrote: John H wrote: Better let Harry do the talking, and you do the follow up. Works better that way. Ok...let's substitute 'high powered yellow Mustang' for SUV.... make more sense? I'm getting over 21mpg in the Mustang. Not bad. It's not really high powered though, only a 4.6L. I thought your Mustang was a GT? It is. The GT has a 4.6L V-8, with an advertised 300hp. I don't do a lot of drag racing though. (Although, I *know* it'll do 110mph in 3rd gear - without redlining.) I've only done that once. That was enough. Fuel Injected? I didn't know you could push the Ford standard 4.6 L to 300 hp without altering something major. Supposedly this is Ford's standard engine package across the product line. Interesting. http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2...05/244450.html http://www.fast-autos.net/ford/05fordmustang.html And you can push it to 500 hp http://www.tuningnews.net/news/04110...g-projects.php Thanks for the URL's, Jim. All that good news fluff makes me feel better about spending the bucks on my toy! -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 21:00:59 -0400, "Bert Robbins" wrote:
"John H" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 00:03:50 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 19:58:39 -0400, John H wrote: On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 22:23:32 GMT, Don White wrote: John H wrote: Better let Harry do the talking, and you do the follow up. Works better that way. Ok...let's substitute 'high powered yellow Mustang' for SUV.... make more sense? I'm getting over 21mpg in the Mustang. Not bad. It's not really high powered though, only a 4.6L. I thought your Mustang was a GT? It is. The GT has a 4.6L V-8, with an advertised 300hp. I don't do a lot of drag racing though. (Although, I *know* it'll do 110mph in 3rd gear - without redlining.) I've only done that once. That was enough. My baby blue '72 Stang with a 2 bbl 302 V8 with a C4 running bias-ply tires with a few lines going down the middle wiould easily do 110. I really miss her! Hell, my pickup would get pretty close to 110, and my old, 1989 Moto Guzzi will also, but neither can do it in third gear well before redlining! -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 21:25:37 -0400, John H
wrote: On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 00:56:10 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 20:46:06 -0400, John H wrote: On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 00:03:50 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 19:58:39 -0400, John H wrote: On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 22:23:32 GMT, Don White wrote: John H wrote: Better let Harry do the talking, and you do the follow up. Works better that way. Ok...let's substitute 'high powered yellow Mustang' for SUV.... make more sense? I'm getting over 21mpg in the Mustang. Not bad. It's not really high powered though, only a 4.6L. I thought your Mustang was a GT? It is. The GT has a 4.6L V-8, with an advertised 300hp. I don't do a lot of drag racing though. (Although, I *know* it'll do 110mph in 3rd gear - without redlining.) I've only done that once. That was enough. Fuel Injected? I didn't know you could push the Ford standard 4.6 L to 300 hp without altering something major. Supposedly this is Ford's standard engine package across the product line. Interesting. Jim beat me to it, but yeah, with a couple or three or four thousand dollars, the thing can be taken to 500 or so hp without too much trouble. Of course, the warranty may not be worth much. Well, it's rated at 300 hp at 6000 - I'm not sure how much of that 300 is usable. My truck develops 500 ft lb of torgue at 1600 rpm with 235 hp stock. Of course, it's not stock. :) |
"John H" wrote in message ... On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 21:10:29 -0400, "*JimH*" wrote: "Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message . .. On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 20:46:06 -0400, John H wrote: On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 00:03:50 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 19:58:39 -0400, John H wrote: On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 22:23:32 GMT, Don White wrote: John H wrote: Better let Harry do the talking, and you do the follow up. Works better that way. Ok...let's substitute 'high powered yellow Mustang' for SUV.... make more sense? I'm getting over 21mpg in the Mustang. Not bad. It's not really high powered though, only a 4.6L. I thought your Mustang was a GT? It is. The GT has a 4.6L V-8, with an advertised 300hp. I don't do a lot of drag racing though. (Although, I *know* it'll do 110mph in 3rd gear - without redlining.) I've only done that once. That was enough. Fuel Injected? I didn't know you could push the Ford standard 4.6 L to 300 hp without altering something major. Supposedly this is Ford's standard engine package across the product line. Interesting. http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2...05/244450.html http://www.fast-autos.net/ford/05fordmustang.html And you can push it to 500 hp http://www.tuningnews.net/news/04110...g-projects.php Thanks for the URL's, Jim. All that good news fluff makes me feel better about spending the bucks on my toy! -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." The fluff did it's job! Not a bad word to say about the Mustang. I am sure you would agree that there are absolutely no down sides to the car to report to would be buyers. Heck, it is all about "looking good and going fast".......sort of like a certain *review* on a SeaRay posted here. ;-) |
"John H" wrote in message ... On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 21:00:59 -0400, "Bert Robbins" wrote: "John H" wrote in message . .. On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 00:03:50 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 19:58:39 -0400, John H wrote: On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 22:23:32 GMT, Don White wrote: John H wrote: Better let Harry do the talking, and you do the follow up. Works better that way. Ok...let's substitute 'high powered yellow Mustang' for SUV.... make more sense? I'm getting over 21mpg in the Mustang. Not bad. It's not really high powered though, only a 4.6L. I thought your Mustang was a GT? It is. The GT has a 4.6L V-8, with an advertised 300hp. I don't do a lot of drag racing though. (Although, I *know* it'll do 110mph in 3rd gear - without redlining.) I've only done that once. That was enough. My baby blue '72 Stang with a 2 bbl 302 V8 with a C4 running bias-ply tires with a few lines going down the middle wiould easily do 110. I really miss her! Hell, my pickup would get pretty close to 110, and my old, 1989 Moto Guzzi will also, but neither can do it in third gear well before redlining! -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." They all must have been red cars as they always go faster.....that is why fire engines are painted red. ;-) |
On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 01:40:17 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing
wrote: On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 21:25:37 -0400, John H wrote: On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 00:56:10 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 20:46:06 -0400, John H wrote: On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 00:03:50 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 19:58:39 -0400, John H wrote: On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 22:23:32 GMT, Don White wrote: John H wrote: Better let Harry do the talking, and you do the follow up. Works better that way. Ok...let's substitute 'high powered yellow Mustang' for SUV.... make more sense? I'm getting over 21mpg in the Mustang. Not bad. It's not really high powered though, only a 4.6L. I thought your Mustang was a GT? It is. The GT has a 4.6L V-8, with an advertised 300hp. I don't do a lot of drag racing though. (Although, I *know* it'll do 110mph in 3rd gear - without redlining.) I've only done that once. That was enough. Fuel Injected? I didn't know you could push the Ford standard 4.6 L to 300 hp without altering something major. Supposedly this is Ford's standard engine package across the product line. Interesting. Jim beat me to it, but yeah, with a couple or three or four thousand dollars, the thing can be taken to 500 or so hp without too much trouble. Of course, the warranty may not be worth much. Well, it's rated at 300 hp at 6000 - I'm not sure how much of that 300 is usable. My truck develops 500 ft lb of torgue at 1600 rpm with 235 hp stock. Of course, it's not stock. :) The folks on the Mustang sites who put the thing on dynamometers (sp?) say it's only about 280 hp at the rear wheels. But that's still plenty for a car that size. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 21:41:02 -0400, "*JimH*" wrote:
"John H" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 21:10:29 -0400, "*JimH*" wrote: "Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 20:46:06 -0400, John H wrote: On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 00:03:50 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 19:58:39 -0400, John H wrote: On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 22:23:32 GMT, Don White wrote: John H wrote: Better let Harry do the talking, and you do the follow up. Works better that way. Ok...let's substitute 'high powered yellow Mustang' for SUV.... make more sense? I'm getting over 21mpg in the Mustang. Not bad. It's not really high powered though, only a 4.6L. I thought your Mustang was a GT? It is. The GT has a 4.6L V-8, with an advertised 300hp. I don't do a lot of drag racing though. (Although, I *know* it'll do 110mph in 3rd gear - without redlining.) I've only done that once. That was enough. Fuel Injected? I didn't know you could push the Ford standard 4.6 L to 300 hp without altering something major. Supposedly this is Ford's standard engine package across the product line. Interesting. http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2...05/244450.html http://www.fast-autos.net/ford/05fordmustang.html And you can push it to 500 hp http://www.tuningnews.net/news/04110...g-projects.php Thanks for the URL's, Jim. All that good news fluff makes me feel better about spending the bucks on my toy! -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." The fluff did it's job! Not a bad word to say about the Mustang. I am sure you would agree that there are absolutely no down sides to the car to report to would be buyers. Heck, it is all about "looking good and going fast".......sort of like a certain *review* on a SeaRay posted here. ;-) Well, I have had a new transmission and a new gas tank put in the thing. But that's minor, and the dealer gave me no squawk about it. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:33 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com