|
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 15:11:10 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: Ford's development of a hybrid SUV is an attempt to control behavior? Please explain this conclusion. They'll still be selling the "regular" kind, for people who actually need a truck-style power train, but sales of those will be reduced to levels they were at 30 years ago, when they were mostly purchased by people who needed the 4WD and the gear ratio. Don't get mired in that paragraph. Explain your conclusion. I was reading in the Times this morning about hybrids and the really curious part is that they aren't that much more "efficient" than a regular car - maybe a mpg or two at most. Emissions are about the same. So far....but they will address the need. It's obvious that they see it, or they wouldn't be spending money trying to build something better. It has to be obvious to anyone but a total idiot that the vast majority of SUVs are NOT being purchased by people who tow things or clamber over bolders and drive through streams for fun. Luggage space and driving in snow are two reasons which hold no water, so we can safely eliminate those. |
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
"Fred Dehl" wrote in message
... "Doug Kanter" wrote in : "Fred Dehl" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in : "Fred Dehl" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in : Obviously the solution is to increase the number of producers, and have them under US control rather than beholden to the instability and hostility of foreign regions. That means, at a MINIMUM, offshore and ANWR. ANWR would barely make a dent. Even the oil companies have stated this. If you prefer no dent at all to any dent, you're an envirofreak. A dent is nice, but sometimes the cost is too high. So you'd rather write your checks to the Bin Laden clan? Let's see...you wrote this at 9:26 PM. Cocktails hadn't worn off yet? What percentage of this country's electricity comes from oil-fueled power plants? Who's talking about electricity, nimrod? Check the ****ing TITLE of the ****ING thread. Oh, and where are your answers to the questions from the other poster about what YOU would to solve the global energy crisis? Still festering in your middle back pocket, I'd reason. I've already presented some workable ideas here in the past. You weren't around. Briefly, my first move would be to strongarm the car makers. Most (not all) people who buy an SUV do so for reasons related only to their size & shape, not their power train. Mommies want the safety or roominess of the boxy vehicle. They have no need for a power train that eats so much fuel. They couldn't even describe the power train and how it's different from that of a sedan. The product needs to be changed so it meets two of the buyers' needs, without addressing the needs of buyers who do not exist. One SUV is going to save the world? No wonder nobody takes you seriously. Are you the same Fred Dehl who suggested that ANWR, a tiny incremental step, would be better than nothing? And yes, one new vehicle could make a difference. Ford & GM didn't take the idea of mini-vans seriously until Chrysler started selling them like hotcakes. One highly efficient SUV that's successful will lead the competition into the same market. Behind all of them will be advertising which tells customers what they want. |
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 15:11:10 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: Ford's development of a hybrid SUV is an attempt to control behavior? Please explain this conclusion. They'll still be selling the "regular" kind, for people who actually need a truck-style power train, but sales of those will be reduced to levels they were at 30 years ago, when they were mostly purchased by people who needed the 4WD and the gear ratio. Don't get mired in that paragraph. Explain your conclusion. I was reading in the Times this morning about hybrids and the really curious part is that they aren't that much more "efficient" than a regular car - maybe a mpg or two at most. Emissions are about the same. However the cost of operation of a hybrid is greater than the cost of a fuel only vehicle. The thing people forget is that the batteries only last so long and then then have to be replaced and the old batteries need to be disposed of properly. People make comments about my needing to buy a more fuel efficient vehicle, I currently drive an 2001 F150 SuperCrew with a 5.4L V8 gas sucking engine. I pay for insurance, fuel and maintenance. I have no monthly payment which costs me about $350 per month. There is no way the total cost of ownership of a new vehicle is going to cost less. |
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 15:11:10 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: Ford's development of a hybrid SUV is an attempt to control behavior? Please explain this conclusion. They'll still be selling the "regular" kind, for people who actually need a truck-style power train, but sales of those will be reduced to levels they were at 30 years ago, when they were mostly purchased by people who needed the 4WD and the gear ratio. Don't get mired in that paragraph. Explain your conclusion. I was reading in the Times this morning about hybrids and the really curious part is that they aren't that much more "efficient" than a regular car - maybe a mpg or two at most. Emissions are about the same. So far....but they will address the need. It's obvious that they see it, or they wouldn't be spending money trying to build something better. It has to be obvious to anyone but a total idiot that the vast majority of SUVs are NOT being purchased by people who tow things or clamber over bolders and drive through streams for fun. Luggage space and driving in snow are two reasons which hold no water, so we can safely eliminate those. Some of us don't fit into regular cars. My legs and torso are long most of tyical sedans I can't fit into. Therefore, I buy vehicles where I can comfortably sit in the drivers seat and operate the vehicle without contorting my body. |
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Fred Dehl" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in : "Fred Dehl" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in : "Fred Dehl" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in : Obviously the solution is to increase the number of producers, and have them under US control rather than beholden to the instability and hostility of foreign regions. That means, at a MINIMUM, offshore and ANWR. ANWR would barely make a dent. Even the oil companies have stated this. If you prefer no dent at all to any dent, you're an envirofreak. A dent is nice, but sometimes the cost is too high. So you'd rather write your checks to the Bin Laden clan? Let's see...you wrote this at 9:26 PM. Cocktails hadn't worn off yet? What percentage of this country's electricity comes from oil-fueled power plants? Who's talking about electricity, nimrod? Check the ****ing TITLE of the ****ING thread. Oh, and where are your answers to the questions from the other poster about what YOU would to solve the global energy crisis? Still festering in your middle back pocket, I'd reason. I've already presented some workable ideas here in the past. You weren't around. Briefly, my first move would be to strongarm the car makers. Most (not all) people who buy an SUV do so for reasons related only to their size & shape, not their power train. Mommies want the safety or roominess of the boxy vehicle. They have no need for a power train that eats so much fuel. They couldn't even describe the power train and how it's different from that of a sedan. The product needs to be changed so it meets two of the buyers' needs, without addressing the needs of buyers who do not exist. One SUV is going to save the world? No wonder nobody takes you seriously. Are you the same Fred Dehl who suggested that ANWR, a tiny incremental step, would be better than nothing? Where is the whine about reducing our reliance on foreign oil. Anyone that states that we need to reduce our need for foreign oil and states that we can't crack open ANWR, start drilling of the Calif. coast and sink more wells in the Gulf of Mexico is an idiot. What is your goal? To reduce consumption or the import of foreign oil? And yes, one new vehicle could make a difference. Ford & GM didn't take the idea of mini-vans seriously until Chrysler started selling them like hotcakes. One highly efficient SUV that's successful will lead the competition into the same market. Behind all of them will be advertising which tells customers what they want. The utility of the mini-van replaced the station wagon rather than becoming a whole new class of vehicle it just got a little bigger with an extra seat or two. |
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
... People make comments about my needing to buy a more fuel efficient vehicle, I currently drive an 2001 F150 SuperCrew with a 5.4L V8 gas sucking engine. I pay for insurance, fuel and maintenance. I have no monthly payment which costs me about $350 per month. There is no way the total cost of ownership of a new vehicle is going to cost less. This is an example of wrong thinking. Your ability to afford the gasoline has no bearing whatsoever on the national need to get a handle on oil consumption. It's a common response, though. |
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. .. One SUV is going to save the world? No wonder nobody takes you seriously. Are you the same Fred Dehl who suggested that ANWR, a tiny incremental step, would be better than nothing? Where is the whine about reducing our reliance on foreign oil. Anyone that states that we need to reduce our need for foreign oil and states that we can't crack open ANWR, start drilling of the Calif. coast and sink more wells in the Gulf of Mexico is an idiot. What is your goal? To reduce consumption or the import of foreign oil? Reducing consumption will impact ALL oil useage, whether domestic or foreign. And yes, one new vehicle could make a difference. Ford & GM didn't take the idea of mini-vans seriously until Chrysler started selling them like hotcakes. One highly efficient SUV that's successful will lead the competition into the same market. Behind all of them will be advertising which tells customers what they want. The utility of the mini-van replaced the station wagon rather than becoming a whole new class of vehicle it just got a little bigger with an extra seat or two. True, but not relevant the the paragraph which preceded it. |
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 15:11:10 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: Ford's development of a hybrid SUV is an attempt to control behavior? Please explain this conclusion. They'll still be selling the "regular" kind, for people who actually need a truck-style power train, but sales of those will be reduced to levels they were at 30 years ago, when they were mostly purchased by people who needed the 4WD and the gear ratio. Don't get mired in that paragraph. Explain your conclusion. I was reading in the Times this morning about hybrids and the really curious part is that they aren't that much more "efficient" than a regular car - maybe a mpg or two at most. Emissions are about the same. So far....but they will address the need. It's obvious that they see it, or they wouldn't be spending money trying to build something better. It has to be obvious to anyone but a total idiot that the vast majority of SUVs are NOT being purchased by people who tow things or clamber over bolders and drive through streams for fun. Luggage space and driving in snow are two reasons which hold no water, so we can safely eliminate those. Everyone wants bigger & better. Look what Toyota did to the RAV4 in 2006. 14 inches longer & a 269 hp V6. |
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message . .. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 15:11:10 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: Ford's development of a hybrid SUV is an attempt to control behavior? Please explain this conclusion. They'll still be selling the "regular" kind, for people who actually need a truck-style power train, but sales of those will be reduced to levels they were at 30 years ago, when they were mostly purchased by people who needed the 4WD and the gear ratio. Don't get mired in that paragraph. Explain your conclusion. I was reading in the Times this morning about hybrids and the really curious part is that they aren't that much more "efficient" than a regular car - maybe a mpg or two at most. Emissions are about the same. So far....but they will address the need. It's obvious that they see it, or they wouldn't be spending money trying to build something better. It has to be obvious to anyone but a total idiot that the vast majority of SUVs are NOT being purchased by people who tow things or clamber over bolders and drive through streams for fun. Luggage space and driving in snow are two reasons which hold no water, so we can safely eliminate those. Some of us don't fit into regular cars. My legs and torso are long most of tyical sedans I can't fit into. Therefore, I buy vehicles where I can comfortably sit in the drivers seat and operate the vehicle without contorting my body. I'm not talking about changes to the size of the driver's seat, or the SUV in general. According to an interview with a Ford representative on the radio news a month ago, neither are they. Their goal is to maintain some of what they know to be the main selling points for many buyers: Size. What they ARE trying to do is two things: Build a hybrid SUV (what's under the hood, in other words), and make major changes to the drive train. Besides aerodynamics, those are obviously the two major detractors from better gas mileage. The majority of non-sports-oriented buyers have no need for 4WD or towing capability. |
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 13:42:05 -0500, "Bert Robbins" wrote: "Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message . .. On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 15:11:10 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: Ford's development of a hybrid SUV is an attempt to control behavior? Please explain this conclusion. They'll still be selling the "regular" kind, for people who actually need a truck-style power train, but sales of those will be reduced to levels they were at 30 years ago, when they were mostly purchased by people who needed the 4WD and the gear ratio. Don't get mired in that paragraph. Explain your conclusion. I was reading in the Times this morning about hybrids and the really curious part is that they aren't that much more "efficient" than a regular car - maybe a mpg or two at most. Emissions are about the same. However the cost of operation of a hybrid is greater than the cost of a fuel only vehicle. The thing people forget is that the batteries only last so long and then then have to be replaced and the old batteries need to be disposed of properly. People make comments about my needing to buy a more fuel efficient vehicle, I currently drive an 2001 F150 SuperCrew with a 5.4L V8 gas sucking engine. I pay for insurance, fuel and maintenance. I have no monthly payment which costs me about $350 per month. There is no way the total cost of ownership of a new vehicle is going to cost less. I have an 2000 F-250 Super Duty diesel with the 7.3 liter engine and it's more efficient over time, cost me less in fuel, than the previous F-350 gas pickup. These little diesel cars are getting popular around here. (regular self service gas = $1.07 per liter) I see England has 4 door versions. All we need is a little SUV with a 1.5 liter diesel engine. |
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
Don White wrote:
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 13:42:05 -0500, "Bert Robbins" wrote: "Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 15:11:10 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: Ford's development of a hybrid SUV is an attempt to control behavior? Please explain this conclusion. They'll still be selling the "regular" kind, for people who actually need a truck-style power train, but sales of those will be reduced to levels they were at 30 years ago, when they were mostly purchased by people who needed the 4WD and the gear ratio. Don't get mired in that paragraph. Explain your conclusion. I was reading in the Times this morning about hybrids and the really curious part is that they aren't that much more "efficient" than a regular car - maybe a mpg or two at most. Emissions are about the same. However the cost of operation of a hybrid is greater than the cost of a fuel only vehicle. The thing people forget is that the batteries only last so long and then then have to be replaced and the old batteries need to be disposed of properly. People make comments about my needing to buy a more fuel efficient vehicle, I currently drive an 2001 F150 SuperCrew with a 5.4L V8 gas sucking engine. I pay for insurance, fuel and maintenance. I have no monthly payment which costs me about $350 per month. There is no way the total cost of ownership of a new vehicle is going to cost less. I have an 2000 F-250 Super Duty diesel with the 7.3 liter engine and it's more efficient over time, cost me less in fuel, than the previous F-350 gas pickup. These little diesel cars are getting popular around here. (regular self service gas = $1.07 per liter) I see England has 4 door versions. All we need is a little SUV with a 1.5 liter diesel engine. oopps...for got the link http://www.thesmart.ca/index.cfm?ID=4720 |
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 20:42:08 +0000, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
It ain't gonna happen with gas/electric. It will happen when they develop small diesel/electric. Gas isn't the way to go. I'm not sure. Different crudes refine differently. I'm not sure if it is due to demand, but I've read that there is more gallons of gas in a barrel of oil, than diesel. We really should be talking in miles per barrel, not gallons, and I don't know what the breakdown is. |
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Bert Robbins" wrote in message . .. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 15:11:10 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: Ford's development of a hybrid SUV is an attempt to control behavior? Please explain this conclusion. They'll still be selling the "regular" kind, for people who actually need a truck-style power train, but sales of those will be reduced to levels they were at 30 years ago, when they were mostly purchased by people who needed the 4WD and the gear ratio. Don't get mired in that paragraph. Explain your conclusion. I was reading in the Times this morning about hybrids and the really curious part is that they aren't that much more "efficient" than a regular car - maybe a mpg or two at most. Emissions are about the same. So far....but they will address the need. It's obvious that they see it, or they wouldn't be spending money trying to build something better. It has to be obvious to anyone but a total idiot that the vast majority of SUVs are NOT being purchased by people who tow things or clamber over bolders and drive through streams for fun. Luggage space and driving in snow are two reasons which hold no water, so we can safely eliminate those. Some of us don't fit into regular cars. My legs and torso are long most of tyical sedans I can't fit into. Therefore, I buy vehicles where I can comfortably sit in the drivers seat and operate the vehicle without contorting my body. I'm not talking about changes to the size of the driver's seat, or the SUV in general. According to an interview with a Ford representative on the radio news a month ago, neither are they. Their goal is to maintain some of what they know to be the main selling points for many buyers: Size. What they ARE trying to do is two things: Build a hybrid SUV (what's under the hood, in other words), and make major changes to the drive train. Besides aerodynamics, those are obviously the two major detractors from better gas mileage. The majority of non-sports-oriented buyers have no need for 4WD or towing capability. You keep making judgments about the appropriateness of vehicles for people, why? Last time I checked I had the freedom to purchase any vehicle I want. If I want a big gas sucking pig of a vehicle what business is it of yours? It is my money? |
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Bert Robbins" wrote in message . .. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 15:11:10 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: Ford's development of a hybrid SUV is an attempt to control behavior? Please explain this conclusion. They'll still be selling the "regular" kind, for people who actually need a truck-style power train, but sales of those will be reduced to levels they were at 30 years ago, when they were mostly purchased by people who needed the 4WD and the gear ratio. Don't get mired in that paragraph. Explain your conclusion. I was reading in the Times this morning about hybrids and the really curious part is that they aren't that much more "efficient" than a regular car - maybe a mpg or two at most. Emissions are about the same. So far....but they will address the need. It's obvious that they see it, or they wouldn't be spending money trying to build something better. It has to be obvious to anyone but a total idiot that the vast majority of SUVs are NOT being purchased by people who tow things or clamber over bolders and drive through streams for fun. Luggage space and driving in snow are two reasons which hold no water, so we can safely eliminate those. Some of us don't fit into regular cars. My legs and torso are long most of tyical sedans I can't fit into. Therefore, I buy vehicles where I can comfortably sit in the drivers seat and operate the vehicle without contorting my body. I'm not talking about changes to the size of the driver's seat, or the SUV in general. According to an interview with a Ford representative on the radio news a month ago, neither are they. Their goal is to maintain some of what they know to be the main selling points for many buyers: Size. What they ARE trying to do is two things: Build a hybrid SUV (what's under the hood, in other words), and make major changes to the drive train. Besides aerodynamics, those are obviously the two major detractors from better gas mileage. The majority of non-sports-oriented buyers have no need for 4WD or towing capability. You keep making judgments about the appropriateness of vehicles for people, why? Last time I checked I had the freedom to purchase any vehicle I want. If I want a big gas sucking pig of a vehicle what business is it of yours? It is my money? You keep responding this way. Why? Nobody except you has suggested that when Ford produces a leaner SUV, you will be unable to buy the original variety. If you disagree, please provide quotes or other evidence of where I've said this. I suspect you have problems when I say most people don't need the truck capabilities, but in fact, it is true. |
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 22:10:02 +0000, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
About twice as much gas in a barrel of crude as diesel. Yeah, but is that due to the demand, or the physical properties of a barrel of oil? I know that home heating oil is quite close to diesel, but is it included in the number? Which makes sense. Just shooting off an opinion, diesel/electric has got to be a better method than gas - just makes sense to me. I wouldn't argue with that, but the point would be to maximize the use of each barrel, be it gas or diesel. By the by, there are several diesel/electric hybrids starting to appear. It seems one of the main pros, is emissions, especially with the low sulfur being mandated in October. Of course, I can't prove that, but still... :) |
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 17:39:29 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message . .. On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 15:11:10 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: Ford's development of a hybrid SUV is an attempt to control behavior? Please explain this conclusion. They'll still be selling the "regular" kind, for people who actually need a truck-style power train, but sales of those will be reduced to levels they were at 30 years ago, when they were mostly purchased by people who needed the 4WD and the gear ratio. Don't get mired in that paragraph. Explain your conclusion. I was reading in the Times this morning about hybrids and the really curious part is that they aren't that much more "efficient" than a regular car - maybe a mpg or two at most. Emissions are about the same. So far....but they will address the need. It's obvious that they see it, or they wouldn't be spending money trying to build something better. It has to be obvious to anyone but a total idiot that the vast majority of SUVs are NOT being purchased by people who tow things or clamber over bolders and drive through streams for fun. Luggage space and driving in snow are two reasons which hold no water, so we can safely eliminate those. It ain't gonna happen with gas/electric. It will happen when they develop small diesel/electric. Gas isn't the way to go. Maybe, but it will happen. |
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 17:33:58 -0500, thunder wrote: On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 22:10:02 +0000, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: About twice as much gas in a barrel of crude as diesel. Yeah, but is that due to the demand, or the physical properties of a barrel of oil? I know that home heating oil is quite close to diesel, but is it included in the number? #2 and diesel are identical. The difference is in the lubricant additives in diesel. #2/diesel are considered a "distillate" in commodity trading and hold pretty close to each other in wholesale pricing. The difference is in additives and how much kerosene is added to the diesel. #2 is pretty much as it comes out of the stack. It's about two to one, gas/diesel in a barrel of oil. An interesting side note - there is more product in a barrel of oil than there is parent stock. A normal "barrel" is 42 gallons, but it produces 44.5 gallons of product. Something doesn't make sense. Diesel is very popular in most of Europe because gas prices are so high. But if there is double the amount of gasoline yield in a barrel of crude than diesel, why is diesel cheaper in Europe and often less than premium gas here in the US? Oh ..... before I forget. Remember our discussion on diesel nozzles vs gas nozzles? I stopped at a truck fueling place in Iowa for fuel. They almost laughed at me, but let me fill up with a warning to be careful. The pump was capable of delivering fuel at 63 (sixty-three) gallons per min.! I squeezed that sucker very, very carefully. RCE |
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
RCE wrote:
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 17:33:58 -0500, thunder wrote: On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 22:10:02 +0000, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: About twice as much gas in a barrel of crude as diesel. Yeah, but is that due to the demand, or the physical properties of a barrel of oil? I know that home heating oil is quite close to diesel, but is it included in the number? #2 and diesel are identical. The difference is in the lubricant additives in diesel. #2/diesel are considered a "distillate" in commodity trading and hold pretty close to each other in wholesale pricing. The difference is in additives and how much kerosene is added to the diesel. #2 is pretty much as it comes out of the stack. It's about two to one, gas/diesel in a barrel of oil. An interesting side note - there is more product in a barrel of oil than there is parent stock. A normal "barrel" is 42 gallons, but it produces 44.5 gallons of product. Something doesn't make sense. Diesel is very popular in most of Europe because gas prices are so high. But if there is double the amount of gasoline yield in a barrel of crude than diesel, why is diesel cheaper in Europe and often less than premium gas here in the US? RCE I didn't know that, but I remember when diesel was cheaper than *regular* unleaded. After the hurricanes, it was higher than premium and it's now between mid-grade and premium here. Dan |
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 20:43:47 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing
wrote: I have an 2000 F-250 Super Duty diesel with the 7.3 liter engine and it's more efficient over time, cost me less in fuel, than the previous F-350 gas pickup. There are more BTUs in a gallon of diesel than a gallon of gasoline, plus the combustion process for diesel is more efficient, primaily because of the higher compression ratio. Taken as a whole diesel is about twice as efficient at producing energy for a given volume of fuel. |
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
"Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 20:43:47 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: I have an 2000 F-250 Super Duty diesel with the 7.3 liter engine and it's more efficient over time, cost me less in fuel, than the previous F-350 gas pickup. There are more BTUs in a gallon of diesel than a gallon of gasoline, plus the combustion process for diesel is more efficient, primaily because of the higher compression ratio. Taken as a whole diesel is about twice as efficient at producing energy for a given volume of fuel. It is now, but 2007 emissions requirements is going to totally re-vamp diesels. I don't know if the new emission requirements affect small pickups, (or boats), but for the trucking industry this is a big deal as power and mileage are expected to suffer. They are adding expensive scrubbers to the exhaust that have to be cleaned and/or replaced regularly and the engines are being detuned to produce fewer particle emissions. I read recently that the emission changes to the requirements for diesels is as far-reaching and hard-hitting as the '72 emission changes for gas engines were. Trucking companies are replacing aging trucks with the 2006 models as quickly as they can. RCE |
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... They are also changing the level of sulphur that can be allowed in diesel fuel which is going to make it more expensive. Already, in MA and CT you can't purchase a diesel powered car and I understand that NY and NJ are next on the list. Dummies. It is dumb. As much as I like big old big block gassers, the future is going to be diesel or diesel electric. I am sold on clean, quiet diesels. In boats they are workhorses. Mrs.E.'s little Sprinter RV has a 154 hp Mercedes diesel in it and it is the sweetest running, quiet diesel engine I've ever heard. As I mentioned, Europeans by and large buy diesel powered vehicles. So why do we have to screw it up on this side of the pond? RCE |
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 01:31:06 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing
wrote: Already, in MA and CT you can't purchase a diesel powered car and I understand that NY and NJ are next on the list. Dummies. Yep, very short sighted, but what's new. I swear that to become a politician in NY or NJ you first have to fail a basic intelligence test, and prove that you did it without cheating. I thought CT was better but maybe not. |
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Bert Robbins" wrote in message ... People make comments about my needing to buy a more fuel efficient vehicle, I currently drive an 2001 F150 SuperCrew with a 5.4L V8 gas sucking engine. I pay for insurance, fuel and maintenance. I have no monthly payment which costs me about $350 per month. There is no way the total cost of ownership of a new vehicle is going to cost less. This is an example of wrong thinking. Your ability to afford the gasoline has no bearing whatsoever on the national need to get a handle on oil consumption. It's a common response, though. Wrong thinking? What is the national need to get a handle on oil consumption? We could sove the problem by building nuclear plants all over the country and reduce our consumption of oil dramatically. I suppose that you will get on board with that, won't you? Or, are you more interested in controlling others behavior because they are not doing what you believe they should be doing? |
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 13:42:05 -0500, "Bert Robbins" wrote: "Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message . .. On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 15:11:10 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: Ford's development of a hybrid SUV is an attempt to control behavior? Please explain this conclusion. They'll still be selling the "regular" kind, for people who actually need a truck-style power train, but sales of those will be reduced to levels they were at 30 years ago, when they were mostly purchased by people who needed the 4WD and the gear ratio. Don't get mired in that paragraph. Explain your conclusion. I was reading in the Times this morning about hybrids and the really curious part is that they aren't that much more "efficient" than a regular car - maybe a mpg or two at most. Emissions are about the same. However the cost of operation of a hybrid is greater than the cost of a fuel only vehicle. The thing people forget is that the batteries only last so long and then then have to be replaced and the old batteries need to be disposed of properly. People make comments about my needing to buy a more fuel efficient vehicle, I currently drive an 2001 F150 SuperCrew with a 5.4L V8 gas sucking engine. I pay for insurance, fuel and maintenance. I have no monthly payment which costs me about $350 per month. There is no way the total cost of ownership of a new vehicle is going to cost less. I have an 2000 F-250 Super Duty diesel with the 7.3 liter engine and it's more efficient over time, cost me less in fuel, than the previous F-350 gas pickup. But, the cost of your diesel cost you about $5,000 more than the gas engine. Have you recouped that initial cost yet? |
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Bert Robbins" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Bert Robbins" wrote in message . .. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 15:11:10 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: Ford's development of a hybrid SUV is an attempt to control behavior? Please explain this conclusion. They'll still be selling the "regular" kind, for people who actually need a truck-style power train, but sales of those will be reduced to levels they were at 30 years ago, when they were mostly purchased by people who needed the 4WD and the gear ratio. Don't get mired in that paragraph. Explain your conclusion. I was reading in the Times this morning about hybrids and the really curious part is that they aren't that much more "efficient" than a regular car - maybe a mpg or two at most. Emissions are about the same. So far....but they will address the need. It's obvious that they see it, or they wouldn't be spending money trying to build something better. It has to be obvious to anyone but a total idiot that the vast majority of SUVs are NOT being purchased by people who tow things or clamber over bolders and drive through streams for fun. Luggage space and driving in snow are two reasons which hold no water, so we can safely eliminate those. Some of us don't fit into regular cars. My legs and torso are long most of tyical sedans I can't fit into. Therefore, I buy vehicles where I can comfortably sit in the drivers seat and operate the vehicle without contorting my body. I'm not talking about changes to the size of the driver's seat, or the SUV in general. According to an interview with a Ford representative on the radio news a month ago, neither are they. Their goal is to maintain some of what they know to be the main selling points for many buyers: Size. What they ARE trying to do is two things: Build a hybrid SUV (what's under the hood, in other words), and make major changes to the drive train. Besides aerodynamics, those are obviously the two major detractors from better gas mileage. The majority of non-sports-oriented buyers have no need for 4WD or towing capability. You keep making judgments about the appropriateness of vehicles for people, why? Last time I checked I had the freedom to purchase any vehicle I want. If I want a big gas sucking pig of a vehicle what business is it of yours? It is my money? You keep responding this way. Why? Nobody except you has suggested that when Ford produces a leaner SUV, you will be unable to buy the original variety. If you disagree, please provide quotes or other evidence of where I've said this. I suspect you have problems when I say most people don't need the truck capabilities, but in fact, it is true. This country is not based upon needs, it is based upon wants and desires. |
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. .. You keep making judgments about the appropriateness of vehicles for people, why? Last time I checked I had the freedom to purchase any vehicle I want. If I want a big gas sucking pig of a vehicle what business is it of yours? It is my money? You keep responding this way. Why? Nobody except you has suggested that when Ford produces a leaner SUV, you will be unable to buy the original variety. If you disagree, please provide quotes or other evidence of where I've said this. I suspect you have problems when I say most people don't need the truck capabilities, but in fact, it is true. This country is not based upon needs, it is based upon wants and desires. Have you ever known anyone for whom an SUV seemed all wrong, and asked them why they bought one? I have. Their wants and desires are simple, usually: They want a boxy vehicle that's higher off the ground because they feel it's safer in collisions. It probably is. And, they want more luggage space. Not seating. Luggage space. (Uncovered luggage is actually dangerous, but never mind that for the moment. These people do not fantasize about driving over rocks and through streams, like you see in the commercials. They would not know the difference between a 4WD 8-cylinder SUV and a 2WD 6 cylinder model. They just want their boxy up-off-the-ground car. They can have that wish, in a vehicle that uses less fuel. As far as needs, an awful lot of people are apparently realizing that SUVs did not meet their needs, and in return for this disappointment they were paying outrageous fuel bills. Around here, they're lined up by the dozens at used car lots. A buddy of mine works for one of the larger Chevy dealers here. He says these SUVs are not lease returns - they're mostly trades for smaller cars. Apparently, the public is more able to make good decisions than you give them credit for. |
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 22:42:39 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: Gas isn't the way to go. Maybe, but it will happen. No it won't. I didn't mean gas - I meant "a better vehicle". Obviously, I don't think we'll see an SUV the size of a Ford Explorer, that's as efficient as a Toyota Prius, but I *do* think we'll see one that's 20-25% more efficient than what's offered now. |
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Bert Robbins" wrote in message ... People make comments about my needing to buy a more fuel efficient vehicle, I currently drive an 2001 F150 SuperCrew with a 5.4L V8 gas sucking engine. I pay for insurance, fuel and maintenance. I have no monthly payment which costs me about $350 per month. There is no way the total cost of ownership of a new vehicle is going to cost less. This is an example of wrong thinking. Your ability to afford the gasoline has no bearing whatsoever on the national need to get a handle on oil consumption. It's a common response, though. Wrong thinking? What is the national need to get a handle on oil consumption? Just a few weeks back, your lord and master said in a speech that we were addicted to oil and needed to reduce our consumption. Was he wrong? Are you doubting your commander in chief? We could sove the problem by building nuclear plants all over the country and reduce our consumption of oil dramatically. I suppose that you will get on board with that, won't you? No. Not enough of our electricity is generated with oil. Vehicles and heating are the major consumers. Or, are you more interested in controlling others behavior because they are not doing what you believe they should be doing? I don't know where you get this "controlling others" bull**** from. Let's see if you can answer a straight question. You walk into a Ford dealership and say you want an SUV. The salesman explains that they now offer two categories. One has a V-8 and 4 wheel drive. The other comes only with a V-6 and 2 wheel drive. The two varieties are the exact same size inside, and offer all the same accessory & trim packages. He asks you a few questions about whether you'll be towing anything, and where you do most of your driving. He then points out that based on your answers, you'll be lucky to get 14 mpg with the V-8, but you'll easily get 20-24 with the V-6. Then, he says "But, it's up to you, obviously". Are you telling me that by offering you a choice, he is controlling your behavior? |
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
"Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 04:01:31 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: Are you telling me that by offering you a choice, he is controlling your behavior? Doug, your cabin fever is showing again. Why not shovel the driveway, go down to the corner store and buy a nice boating magazine. It will calm you down and get you thinking "on topic". I'm totally on topic here, Wayne. |
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 21:32:17 GMT, Don White wrote:
Don White wrote: Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 13:42:05 -0500, "Bert Robbins" wrote: "Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 15:11:10 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: Ford's development of a hybrid SUV is an attempt to control behavior? Please explain this conclusion. They'll still be selling the "regular" kind, for people who actually need a truck-style power train, but sales of those will be reduced to levels they were at 30 years ago, when they were mostly purchased by people who needed the 4WD and the gear ratio. Don't get mired in that paragraph. Explain your conclusion. I was reading in the Times this morning about hybrids and the really curious part is that they aren't that much more "efficient" than a regular car - maybe a mpg or two at most. Emissions are about the same. However the cost of operation of a hybrid is greater than the cost of a fuel only vehicle. The thing people forget is that the batteries only last so long and then then have to be replaced and the old batteries need to be disposed of properly. People make comments about my needing to buy a more fuel efficient vehicle, I currently drive an 2001 F150 SuperCrew with a 5.4L V8 gas sucking engine. I pay for insurance, fuel and maintenance. I have no monthly payment which costs me about $350 per month. There is no way the total cost of ownership of a new vehicle is going to cost less. I have an 2000 F-250 Super Duty diesel with the 7.3 liter engine and it's more efficient over time, cost me less in fuel, than the previous F-350 gas pickup. These little diesel cars are getting popular around here. (regular self service gas = $1.07 per liter) I see England has 4 door versions. All we need is a little SUV with a 1.5 liter diesel engine. oopps...for got the link http://www.thesmart.ca/index.cfm?ID=4720 The streets of Rome were full of these little guys last time I was there. They probably wouldn't pass all of our 'crash-worthy' tests, but then neither do motorcycles! -- 'Til next time, John H ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** |
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message . .. You keep making judgments about the appropriateness of vehicles for people, why? Last time I checked I had the freedom to purchase any vehicle I want. If I want a big gas sucking pig of a vehicle what business is it of yours? It is my money? You keep responding this way. Why? Nobody except you has suggested that when Ford produces a leaner SUV, you will be unable to buy the original variety. If you disagree, please provide quotes or other evidence of where I've said this. I suspect you have problems when I say most people don't need the truck capabilities, but in fact, it is true. This country is not based upon needs, it is based upon wants and desires. Have you ever known anyone for whom an SUV seemed all wrong, and asked them why they bought one? I have. Their wants and desires are simple, usually: They want a boxy vehicle that's higher off the ground because they feel it's safer in collisions. It probably is. And, they want more luggage space. Not seating. Luggage space. (Uncovered luggage is actually dangerous, but never mind that for the moment. These people do not fantasize about driving over rocks and through streams, like you see in the commercials. They would not know the difference between a 4WD 8-cylinder SUV and a 2WD 6 cylinder model. They just want their boxy up-off-the-ground car. They can have that wish, in a vehicle that uses less fuel. As far as needs, an awful lot of people are apparently realizing that SUVs did not meet their needs, and in return for this disappointment they were paying outrageous fuel bills. Around here, they're lined up by the dozens at used car lots. A buddy of mine works for one of the larger Chevy dealers here. He says these SUVs are not lease returns - they're mostly trades for smaller cars. Apparently, the public is more able to make good decisions than you give them credit for. I'm sure most 'city drivers' would be happy with something like a Subaru Forrester. Car like handling, boxier compartment..although a bit cramped, and AWD in case you get a dusting of snow. My sister is on her 2nd. Had a plain 2004 and just upgraded to fancier 2006. |
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Bert Robbins" wrote in message . .. You keep making judgments about the appropriateness of vehicles for people, why? Last time I checked I had the freedom to purchase any vehicle I want. If I want a big gas sucking pig of a vehicle what business is it of yours? It is my money? You keep responding this way. Why? Nobody except you has suggested that when Ford produces a leaner SUV, you will be unable to buy the original variety. If you disagree, please provide quotes or other evidence of where I've said this. I suspect you have problems when I say most people don't need the truck capabilities, but in fact, it is true. This country is not based upon needs, it is based upon wants and desires. Have you ever known anyone for whom an SUV seemed all wrong, and asked them why they bought one? I have. Their wants and desires are simple, usually: They want a boxy vehicle that's higher off the ground because they feel it's safer in collisions. It probably is. And, they want more luggage space. Not seating. Luggage space. (Uncovered luggage is actually dangerous, but never mind that for the moment. No, I haven't asked any vehicle owner that wasn't a family member or close personoal friend why they own a particular vehicle. Make a presumption as to whether or not a vehicle is appropriate to someone based upon seeing them once is ridiculous and idiotic. These people do not fantasize about driving over rocks and through streams, like you see in the commercials. They would not know the difference between a 4WD 8-cylinder SUV and a 2WD 6 cylinder model. They just want their boxy up-off-the-ground car. They can have that wish, in a vehicle that uses less fuel. Your powers of calirvoiance are amazing. The State Departmet, CIA and DOD might be interested in hiring you. As far as needs, an awful lot of people are apparently realizing that SUVs did not meet their needs, and in return for this disappointment they were paying outrageous fuel bills. Around here, they're lined up by the dozens at used car lots. A buddy of mine works for one of the larger Chevy dealers here. He says these SUVs are not lease returns - they're mostly trades for smaller cars. Never leased a car and never will. I buy new and keep them for a long time. The shortest period I have owned a vehicle is four years and the average is somewhere around eight years. The last two vehicles that we got rid of were a large sedan and a 1/2 ton truck, both donated to charity, the sedan was 8 years old when we donated it and the truck was 7 years old. I currently own a full size truck and a mini-van, the truck is 6 years old and the mini-van is 10 years old. Apparently, the public is more able to make good decisions than you give them credit for. The public, in general, moves with the wind. The public buys a new car every two to three years and finances it for anywhere from five to seven years. You should be chastising them about their irresponsible handling of money. |
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Bert Robbins" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Bert Robbins" wrote in message ... People make comments about my needing to buy a more fuel efficient vehicle, I currently drive an 2001 F150 SuperCrew with a 5.4L V8 gas sucking engine. I pay for insurance, fuel and maintenance. I have no monthly payment which costs me about $350 per month. There is no way the total cost of ownership of a new vehicle is going to cost less. This is an example of wrong thinking. Your ability to afford the gasoline has no bearing whatsoever on the national need to get a handle on oil consumption. It's a common response, though. Wrong thinking? What is the national need to get a handle on oil consumption? Just a few weeks back, your lord and master said in a speech that we were addicted to oil and needed to reduce our consumption. Was he wrong? Are you doubting your commander in chief? Your lord and master wants you to return to the pre-industrial revolution age while he stays in the present. It is about controlling the population. Restrict their ability to move about and to get informaiton. We could sove the problem by building nuclear plants all over the country and reduce our consumption of oil dramatically. I suppose that you will get on board with that, won't you? No. Not enough of our electricity is generated with oil. Vehicles and heating are the major consumers. In order to realize new energy transfer technologies we will need large quantities of electricity available (e.g. Hydrogen) Or, are you more interested in controlling others behavior because they are not doing what you believe they should be doing? I don't know where you get this "controlling others" bull**** from. Let's see if you can answer a straight question. You walk into a Ford dealership and say you want an SUV. The salesman explains that they now offer two categories. One has a V-8 and 4 wheel drive. The other comes only with a V-6 and 2 wheel drive. The two varieties are the exact same size inside, and offer all the same accessory & trim packages. He asks you a few questions about whether you'll be towing anything, and where you do most of your driving. He then points out that based on your answers, you'll be lucky to get 14 mpg with the V-8, but you'll easily get 20-24 with the V-6. Then, he says "But, it's up to you, obviously". I would chose the V-8. Are you telling me that by offering you a choice, he is controlling your behavior? When the choice is taken away based upon the desire to change or control behavior that is where social engineering comes into play and it has proved it is a failure. Innovation and choice have made the USA the best country in the world. If we are not the best country in the world then why are we the most desired emigration destination. |
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 04:01:31 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: Are you telling me that by offering you a choice, he is controlling your behavior? Doug, your cabin fever is showing again. Why not shovel the driveway, go down to the corner store and buy a nice boating magazine. It will calm you down and get you thinking "on topic". I'm totally on topic here, Wayne. You are not on topic your are on the podium preaching to the wrong congregation. |
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. .. Have you ever known anyone for whom an SUV seemed all wrong, and asked them why they bought one? I have. Their wants and desires are simple, usually: They want a boxy vehicle that's higher off the ground because they feel it's safer in collisions. It probably is. And, they want more luggage space. Not seating. Luggage space. (Uncovered luggage is actually dangerous, but never mind that for the moment. No, I haven't asked any vehicle owner that wasn't a family member or close personoal friend why they own a particular vehicle. Make a presumption as to whether or not a vehicle is appropriate to someone based upon seeing them once is ridiculous and idiotic. These people do not fantasize about driving over rocks and through streams, like you see in the commercials. They would not know the difference between a 4WD 8-cylinder SUV and a 2WD 6 cylinder model. They just want their boxy up-off-the-ground car. They can have that wish, in a vehicle that uses less fuel. Your powers of calirvoiance are amazing. The State Departmet, CIA and DOD might be interested in hiring you. Either you weren't alive in the 1970s, or you never look out the window of your car. There are vastly more SUVs around now than 30+ years ago. There is absolutely NO WAY all these new owners are the type who actually use the mechanical capabilities of those vehicles. And, don't blurt out stuff like "Oh yeah? Well, in places like Big Gulch, Colorado, elevation 3000 feet, there were always lots of SUVs 'cause it snows like crazy there, and lots of people live on unpaved roads". Of course. That's where SUVs belong, as opposed to making up 50% of the vehicles in a shopping mall in Cherry Hill, New Jersey. I'll bet you a month's salary the average SUV-driving soccer mom doesn't even know where the 4WD switch is located. Never leased a car and never will. I buy... snipped clutter which was unrelated to the discussion Apparently, the public is more able to make good decisions than you give them credit for. The public, in general, moves with the wind. The public buys a new car every two to three years and finances it for anywhere from five to seven years. You should be chastising them about their irresponsible handling of money. More clutter. Not relevant. |
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message . .. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 04:01:31 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: Are you telling me that by offering you a choice, he is controlling your behavior? Doug, your cabin fever is showing again. Why not shovel the driveway, go down to the corner store and buy a nice boating magazine. It will calm you down and get you thinking "on topic". I'm totally on topic here, Wayne. You are not on topic your are on the podium preaching to the wrong congregation. That makes two of us, then. |
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Bert Robbins" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Bert Robbins" wrote in message ... People make comments about my needing to buy a more fuel efficient vehicle, I currently drive an 2001 F150 SuperCrew with a 5.4L V8 gas sucking engine. I pay for insurance, fuel and maintenance. I have no monthly payment which costs me about $350 per month. There is no way the total cost of ownership of a new vehicle is going to cost less. This is an example of wrong thinking. Your ability to afford the gasoline has no bearing whatsoever on the national need to get a handle on oil consumption. It's a common response, though. Wrong thinking? What is the national need to get a handle on oil consumption? Just a few weeks back, your lord and master said in a speech that we were addicted to oil and needed to reduce our consumption. Was he wrong? Are you doubting your commander in chief? Your lord and master wants you to return to the pre-industrial revolution age while he stays in the present. It is about controlling the population. Restrict their ability to move about and to get informaiton. Stick with the subject of oil. This has nothing to do with restricting anyone's ability to move about. If you think I'm wrong, explain the connection. We could sove the problem by building nuclear plants all over the country and reduce our consumption of oil dramatically. I suppose that you will get on board with that, won't you? No. Not enough of our electricity is generated with oil. Vehicles and heating are the major consumers. In order to realize new energy transfer technologies we will need large quantities of electricity available (e.g. Hydrogen) Go get more coffee. You're having problems following your own train of thought from yesterday. Or, are you more interested in controlling others behavior because they are not doing what you believe they should be doing? I don't know where you get this "controlling others" bull**** from. Let's see if you can answer a straight question. You walk into a Ford dealership and say you want an SUV. The salesman explains that they now offer two categories. One has a V-8 and 4 wheel drive. The other comes only with a V-6 and 2 wheel drive. The two varieties are the exact same size inside, and offer all the same accessory & trim packages. He asks you a few questions about whether you'll be towing anything, and where you do most of your driving. He then points out that based on your answers, you'll be lucky to get 14 mpg with the V-8, but you'll easily get 20-24 with the V-6. Then, he says "But, it's up to you, obviously". I would chose the V-8. Are you telling me that by offering you a choice, he is controlling your behavior? When the choice is taken away based upon the desire to change or control behavior that is where social engineering comes into play and it has proved it is a failure. In the paragraph above, beginning with "I don't know where you get this", please point out where a choice has been taken away. |
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Bert Robbins" wrote in message . .. Have you ever known anyone for whom an SUV seemed all wrong, and asked them why they bought one? I have. Their wants and desires are simple, usually: They want a boxy vehicle that's higher off the ground because they feel it's safer in collisions. It probably is. And, they want more luggage space. Not seating. Luggage space. (Uncovered luggage is actually dangerous, but never mind that for the moment. No, I haven't asked any vehicle owner that wasn't a family member or close personoal friend why they own a particular vehicle. Make a presumption as to whether or not a vehicle is appropriate to someone based upon seeing them once is ridiculous and idiotic. These people do not fantasize about driving over rocks and through streams, like you see in the commercials. They would not know the difference between a 4WD 8-cylinder SUV and a 2WD 6 cylinder model. They just want their boxy up-off-the-ground car. They can have that wish, in a vehicle that uses less fuel. Your powers of calirvoiance are amazing. The State Departmet, CIA and DOD might be interested in hiring you. Either you weren't alive in the 1970s, or you never look out the window of your car. There are vastly more SUVs around now than 30+ years ago. There is absolutely NO WAY all these new owners are the type who actually use the mechanical capabilities of those vehicles. And, don't blurt out stuff like "Oh yeah? Well, in places like Big Gulch, Colorado, elevation 3000 feet, there were always lots of SUVs 'cause it snows like crazy there, and lots of people live on unpaved roads". Of course. That's where SUVs belong, as opposed to making up 50% of the vehicles in a shopping mall in Cherry Hill, New Jersey. I was around in the '70's. There are vastly fewer station wagons now than there were SUV's. There are vastly more fuel efficient vehicles now than in the '70's. This is all due to choice by the buyers and the manufacturers providing those choices. People should have a choice. Why don't you argue that choice is bad? I'll bet you a month's salary the average SUV-driving soccer mom doesn't even know where the 4WD switch is located. Never leased a car and never will. I buy... snipped clutter which was unrelated to the discussion Why was it unrelated to the discussion. I made a choice and I stuck with it because it is more economically beneficial to me. Apparently, the public is more able to make good decisions than you give them credit for. The public, in general, moves with the wind. The public buys a new car every two to three years and finances it for anywhere from five to seven years. You should be chastising them about their irresponsible handling of money. More clutter. Not relevant. Why do you want to control the public's behavior? Why do you want to take away their freedom by removing choices? Does your family appreciate you making all of their daily decisions for them. Will your children live with your for the rest of their lives? |
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Bert Robbins" wrote in message . .. Have you ever known anyone for whom an SUV seemed all wrong, and asked them why they bought one? I have. Their wants and desires are simple, usually: They want a boxy vehicle that's higher off the ground because they feel it's safer in collisions. It probably is. And, they want more luggage space. Not seating. Luggage space. (Uncovered luggage is actually dangerous, but never mind that for the moment. No, I haven't asked any vehicle owner that wasn't a family member or close personoal friend why they own a particular vehicle. Make a presumption as to whether or not a vehicle is appropriate to someone based upon seeing them once is ridiculous and idiotic. These people do not fantasize about driving over rocks and through streams, like you see in the commercials. They would not know the difference between a 4WD 8-cylinder SUV and a 2WD 6 cylinder model. They just want their boxy up-off-the-ground car. They can have that wish, in a vehicle that uses less fuel. Your powers of calirvoiance are amazing. The State Departmet, CIA and DOD might be interested in hiring you. Either you weren't alive in the 1970s, or you never look out the window of your car. There are vastly more SUVs around now than 30+ years ago. There is absolutely NO WAY all these new owners are the type who actually use the mechanical capabilities of those vehicles. And, don't blurt out stuff like "Oh yeah? Well, in places like Big Gulch, Colorado, elevation 3000 feet, there were always lots of SUVs 'cause it snows like crazy there, and lots of people live on unpaved roads". Of course. That's where SUVs belong, as opposed to making up 50% of the vehicles in a shopping mall in Cherry Hill, New Jersey. I was around in the '70's. There are vastly fewer station wagons now than there were SUV's. There are vastly more fuel efficient vehicles now than in the '70's. This is all due to choice by the buyers and the manufacturers providing those choices. People should have a choice. Why don't you argue that choice is bad? I'm not arguing that choices should be taken away. You keep saying this. So, let's try another way. According to Ford, the company trying to develop a much more efficient SUV, but with the same physical size & comfort features of their current ones. They will still continue to sell the more powerful ones, as well. This information came from a Ford spokesperson. DO YOU BELIEVE THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE? Why do you want to control the public's behavior? Why do you want to take away their freedom by removing choices? I'm describing how a company is developing a NEW set of choices, not taking away an existing choice. How do you interpret that as a desire on my part to limit choices? Does your family appreciate you making all of their daily decisions for them. Will your children live with your for the rest of their lives? You've tried this "family" stunt before, when you're about to run out of ideas and you're being backed into an alley. Drop it. |
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
"Fred Dehl" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in : Are you the same Fred Dehl who suggested that ANWR, a tiny incremental step, would be better than nothing? You're the only one who's suggested ANWR is a "tiny incremental step". It's far more than that. Use numbers. What percentage is, or is not incremental, in your opinion? And yes, one new vehicle could make a difference. Ford & GM didn't take the idea of mini-vans Mini-vans are loathed by your ilk. Not relevant to this discussion. This is about marketing a product, not my opinion of certain vehicles. seriously until Chrysler started selling them like hotcakes. One highly efficient SUV that's successful will lead the competition into the same market. The cost of operating these SUVs is little different from operating a gas one. I'll need a link for your source of that information. Good luck. The vehicles don't exist yet. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:34 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com