"RCE" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...


As far as the 40 mpg hybrids you keep mentioning, you need to stop that.
According to two people I know who own them, Escalades get 12-14 mpg on a
good day. A Camry or an Impala get numbers in the high 20s - low 30s. I
wasn't a math whiz in high school, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but
I *think* that's about twice the gas mileage of an Escalade.




A 40 mpg hybrid, a Camry or an Impala are not suitable to tow a 5000 lb
boat to the launch site.
A F-350 diesel pickup that gets 16-18 mpg is, among many other uses.

RCE



I never suggested that someone who needs to tow should own anything but a
vehicle capable of doing it.

Maybe we should check here and see what we both believe, based on our own
observations. I'll use the word "truck" here to mean actual trucks, SUVs,
Humjobs, etc. Now: For every 100 trucks you see, what percentage do you
think actually tow anything, or, for that matter, to do ANYTHING that only a
truck can do? To assist with the answer, think about two things. First,
think about how trucks are sold in commercials - how they portray the
customers, and the activities shown. Second, think back to the 1960s -
1970s. Do you have any memory of how many trucks you'd see in parking lots,
compared to what you see now? I'm not talking about the parking lot of a
hunting lodge - I'm talking about places which represent a more average
selection of drivers.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"RCE" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...


As far as the 40 mpg hybrids you keep mentioning, you need to stop that.
According to two people I know who own them, Escalades get 12-14 mpg on
a good day. A Camry or an Impala get numbers in the high 20s - low 30s.
I wasn't a math whiz in high school, so please correct me if I'm wrong,
but I *think* that's about twice the gas mileage of an Escalade.




A 40 mpg hybrid, a Camry or an Impala are not suitable to tow a 5000 lb
boat to the launch site.
A F-350 diesel pickup that gets 16-18 mpg is, among many other uses.

RCE



I never suggested that someone who needs to tow should own anything but a
vehicle capable of doing it.

Maybe we should check here and see what we both believe, based on our own
observations. I'll use the word "truck" here to mean actual trucks, SUVs,
Humjobs, etc. Now: For every 100 trucks you see, what percentage do you
think actually tow anything, or, for that matter, to do ANYTHING that only
a truck can do? To assist with the answer, think about two things. First,
think about how trucks are sold in commercials - how they portray the
customers, and the activities shown. Second, think back to the 1960s -
1970s. Do you have any memory of how many trucks you'd see in parking
lots, compared to what you see now? I'm not talking about the parking lot
of a hunting lodge - I'm talking about places which represent a more
average selection of drivers.


Few trucks, but lots of big cars with huge, sweeping fins.
That's what consumers liked .... that's what they got.

I understand your position and the points you are making, Doug. I just
don't think you are going to change a nation's 100 year old mindset
overnight or anytime soon for that matter. You are correct in everything
you say, if you subscribe to that type of thinking. Most don't. Nobody is
going to give up suburbia and move back to the cities anytime soon.
Incentives have been forced down our throats to no avail .... HOV lanes that
are 10% utilized, gas guzzler taxes, even high fuel prices. Americans want
their big cars and trucks, whatever the cost.

RCE

"RCE" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"RCE" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...


As far as the 40 mpg hybrids you keep mentioning, you need to stop
that. According to two people I know who own them, Escalades get 12-14
mpg on a good day. A Camry or an Impala get numbers in the high 20s -
low 30s. I wasn't a math whiz in high school, so please correct me if
I'm wrong, but I *think* that's about twice the gas mileage of an
Escalade.




A 40 mpg hybrid, a Camry or an Impala are not suitable to tow a 5000 lb
boat to the launch site.
A F-350 diesel pickup that gets 16-18 mpg is, among many other uses.

RCE



I never suggested that someone who needs to tow should own anything but a
vehicle capable of doing it.

Maybe we should check here and see what we both believe, based on our own
observations. I'll use the word "truck" here to mean actual trucks, SUVs,
Humjobs, etc. Now: For every 100 trucks you see, what percentage do you
think actually tow anything, or, for that matter, to do ANYTHING that
only a truck can do? To assist with the answer, think about two things.
First, think about how trucks are sold in commercials - how they portray
the customers, and the activities shown. Second, think back to the
1960s - 1970s. Do you have any memory of how many trucks you'd see in
parking lots, compared to what you see now? I'm not talking about the
parking lot of a hunting lodge - I'm talking about places which represent
a more average selection of drivers.


Few trucks, but lots of big cars with huge, sweeping fins.
That's what consumers liked .... that's what they got.

I understand your position and the points you are making, Doug. I just
don't think you are going to change a nation's 100 year old mindset
overnight or anytime soon for that matter. You are correct in everything
you say, if you subscribe to that type of thinking. Most don't. Nobody
is going to give up suburbia and move back to the cities anytime soon.
Incentives have been forced down our throats to no avail .... HOV lanes
that are 10% utilized, gas guzzler taxes, even high fuel prices. Americans
want their big cars and trucks, whatever the cost.

RCE

Part of the problem is that absolutely nobody is suggesting that people
change.* And, let's face it: Some people need to be reminded. I see no
reason why a president could not reason with people. Hell...we're told not
to question the war, and a big chunk of the population happily obeys.

* Bert and Fred should come along here sometime soon and say that I'm trying
to "control peoples' behavior". I'd be interested in seeing what these
numbskulls would do if they were diagnosed with precancerous moles, and
their doctors suggested that they should be more careful about exposure to
the sun. "Look, doctor boy - don't try and control MY behavior!"

I never suggested that someone who needs to tow should own anything but a
vehicle capable of doing it.

Maybe we should check here and see what we both believe, based on our own
observations. I'll use the word "truck" here to mean actual trucks, SUVs,
Humjobs, etc. Now: For every 100 trucks you see, what percentage do you
think actually tow anything, or, for that matter, to do ANYTHING that only
a truck can do? To assist with the answer, think about two things. First,
think about how trucks are sold in commercials - how they portray the
customers, and the activities shown. Second, think back to the 1960s -
1970s. Do you have any memory of how many trucks you'd see in parking
lots, compared to what you see now? I'm not talking about the parking lot
of a hunting lodge - I'm talking about places which represent a more
average selection of drivers.


All you are talking about Doug, is consumer preferences. People buy what
they want to own, depending on their preferences. The best way to change
what they buy is to change their preferences. If you are expecting
consumers to make those changes on their own, without a big-time motivator,
dream on. The is no more effective way to change consumer preferences
toward automobiles than with the price of gas. The process is underway.
Expect to see many less "trucks" in the supermarket parking lot in five
years. Seriously. This method of changing preferences is far more natural
and will be far more effective than any governmental mandated changes, and
will happen much more quickly than waiting for it to happen due to a rising
social consciousness.

The bonus of higher gas prices besides changing what people buy, is that it
makes the economic viability of, and therefore the research into alternative
energy technology more of a reality.

"RG" wrote in message
. ..

I never suggested that someone who needs to tow should own anything but a
vehicle capable of doing it.

Maybe we should check here and see what we both believe, based on our own
observations. I'll use the word "truck" here to mean actual trucks, SUVs,
Humjobs, etc. Now: For every 100 trucks you see, what percentage do you
think actually tow anything, or, for that matter, to do ANYTHING that
only a truck can do? To assist with the answer, think about two things.
First, think about how trucks are sold in commercials - how they portray
the customers, and the activities shown. Second, think back to the
1960s - 1970s. Do you have any memory of how many trucks you'd see in
parking lots, compared to what you see now? I'm not talking about the
parking lot of a hunting lodge - I'm talking about places which represent
a more average selection of drivers.


All you are talking about Doug, is consumer preferences. People buy what
they want to own, depending on their preferences. The best way to change
what they buy is to change their preferences. If you are expecting
consumers to make those changes on their own, without a big-time
motivator, dream on. The is no more effective way to change consumer
preferences toward automobiles than with the price of gas. The process is
underway. Expect to see many less "trucks" in the supermarket parking lot
in five years. Seriously. This method of changing preferences is far
more natural and will be far more effective than any governmental mandated
changes, and will happen much more quickly than waiting for it to happen
due to a rising social consciousness.

The bonus of higher gas prices besides changing what people buy, is that
it makes the economic viability of, and therefore the research into
alternative energy technology more of a reality.


The thing is, I'm not suggesting government mandated anything. What I *am*
suggesting is that the government might be able to lose its unwillingness to
offend the auto industry, and present the public with information would help
them change their preferences. Why not? It's no different than the
advertising which makes people buy things, right? People don't just buy
based on their own preferences. They also do so because humans are
"clubby" - they want to be members of a group, no matter how stupid the
group may be. Sometimes they choose the wrong group, sometimes not. But,
effect one customer, and he/she may effect others. Actually, that's a
virtual certainty.

The thing is, I'm not suggesting government mandated anything. What I *am*
suggesting is that the government might be able to lose its unwillingness
to offend the auto industry, and present the public with information would
help them change their preferences. Why not? It's no different than the
advertising which makes people buy things, right? People don't just buy
based on their own preferences. They also do so because humans are
"clubby" - they want to be members of a group, no matter how stupid the
group may be. Sometimes they choose the wrong group, sometimes not. But,
effect one customer, and he/she may effect others. Actually, that's a
virtual certainty.

Wanting to belong is nothing more than a facet of personal preference. The
government can disseminate all the information it wants to, but it is
unlikely that it is telling anything to anyone that they don't already know.
Not terribly effective.

A good parallel here is the Surgeon's General warning on every pack of
cigarettes. Is there an American alive today that doesn't already know the
health risks of smoking? And yet it continues. But in reduced numbers.
However, I think the reduced numbers have much more to do with the financial
cost of a pack of cigs, versus any governmental educational program. If you
want to get an American's attention, speak to him through his wallet.

"RG" wrote in message
. ..

The thing is, I'm not suggesting government mandated anything. What I
*am* suggesting is that the government might be able to lose its
unwillingness to offend the auto industry, and present the public with
information would help them change their preferences. Why not? It's no
different than the advertising which makes people buy things, right?
People don't just buy based on their own preferences. They also do so
because humans are "clubby" - they want to be members of a group, no
matter how stupid the group may be. Sometimes they choose the wrong
group, sometimes not. But, effect one customer, and he/she may effect
others. Actually, that's a virtual certainty.

Wanting to belong is nothing more than a facet of personal preference.
The government can disseminate all the information it wants to, but it is
unlikely that it is telling anything to anyone that they don't already
know. Not terribly effective.

A good parallel here is the Surgeon's General warning on every pack of
cigarettes. Is there an American alive today that doesn't already know
the health risks of smoking? And yet it continues. But in reduced
numbers. However, I think the reduced numbers have much more to do with
the financial cost of a pack of cigs, versus any governmental educational
program. If you want to get an American's attention, speak to him through
his wallet.


Cool. Now I'll get Stalin-esque. Slap an enormous, annual tax on trucks,
unless an owner can show that he actually has a purpose for it, other than
"I just wanted a Dodge with a hemi so I could hang chrome accessories on
it". No trailer registered to the same owner, meaning he tows nothing? He
gets taxed. Not in a profession which actually requires a truck, like
carpenters & landscapers? He gets taxed. If a doctor decides to become a
plumber, there are ways of giving him back his surcharge in future years. No
more buying a huge truck just because every 4 years, you need to bring home
a bale of peat moss.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...


Cool. Now I'll get Stalin-esque. Slap an enormous, annual tax on trucks,
unless an owner can show that he actually has a purpose for it, other than
"I just wanted a Dodge with a hemi so I could hang chrome accessories on
it". No trailer registered to the same owner, meaning he tows nothing? He
gets taxed. Not in a profession which actually requires a truck, like
carpenters & landscapers? He gets taxed. If a doctor decides to become a
plumber, there are ways of giving him back his surcharge in future years.
No more buying a huge truck just because every 4 years, you need to bring
home a bale of peat moss.


Y'all ain't gittin my truck, even if'in i hafta learn how to load the
bullits in my shotgun and carry it ona rack in the rear window!

RCE

"RCE" wrote in message
...



Y'all ain't gittin my truck, even if'in i hafta learn how to load the
bullits in my shotgun and carry it ona rack in the rear window!

RCE



That is, of course, unless you make me an offer I can't refuse.

RCE

"RCE" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...


Cool. Now I'll get Stalin-esque. Slap an enormous, annual tax on trucks,
unless an owner can show that he actually has a purpose for it, other
than "I just wanted a Dodge with a hemi so I could hang chrome
accessories on it". No trailer registered to the same owner, meaning he
tows nothing? He gets taxed. Not in a profession which actually requires
a truck, like carpenters & landscapers? He gets taxed. If a doctor
decides to become a plumber, there are ways of giving him back his
surcharge in future years. No more buying a huge truck just because every
4 years, you need to bring home a bale of peat moss.


Y'all ain't gittin my truck, even if'in i hafta learn how to load the
bullits in my shotgun and carry it ona rack in the rear window!

RCE


And there we have it! Joe 2-pack has spoken. (They usually can't count to 6)