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.