edward ohare

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 14:48:27 GMT, tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com
(Brent P) wrote:

>In article <au2q80t2ml135d8c51v04it26c7332viip@4ax.com>, edward ohare wrote:
>
>> As I have observed elsewhere, we cannot quickly reconfigure the US
>> fleet, and comments of others concerning negative equity loans doesn't
>> account for the inability of enough people to be able to afford to do
>> so to make a difference.
>
>I am sure there are enough fuel efficent cars from the mid 1980s in
>junkyards that can be patched together for them.


<Sigh>

Salvage yards don't store intact cars waiting for someone who wants
parts off them. Its 1990 and you have ten 85 Escorts. Eight have
front damage. You pull the front sheet metal off the two without
front damage. You keep a couple of motors. You keep two intact that
are good from the cowl back. You crush everything else. You've now
freed 8 of the 10 spots. If you fill those 8 spots before the two
intact cars good from the cowl back are stripped, you crush them, and
some of the new 8 ones.

Brent P

In article <Pine.GSO.4.58.0404261230080.20118@alumni.engin.um ich.edu>, Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> availability problem. Starting is much easier with gaseous fuel, and
> engine life is longer. And exhaust emissions are clean enough for such
> engines to be used indoors, which they frequently are.

Ever try to use a basement lab when the propane powered floor buffers are
being used? I couldn't get enough air to breath.... And the emissions
did have an effect on me. While they would probably be clean enough
for a large place, like an airport, smaller spaces are bad.

Brent P

In article <h4gq80hm3csilf6ohidapfbj5crmaorbaj@4ax.com>, edward ohare wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 14:48:27 GMT, tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>In article <au2q80t2ml135d8c51v04it26c7332viip@4ax.com>, edward ohare wrote:
>>
>>> As I have observed elsewhere, we cannot quickly reconfigure the US
>>> fleet, and comments of others concerning negative equity loans doesn't
>>> account for the inability of enough people to be able to afford to do
>>> so to make a difference.
>>
>>I am sure there are enough fuel efficent cars from the mid 1980s in
>>junkyards that can be patched together for them.
>
>
><Sigh>
>
> Salvage yards don't store intact cars waiting for someone who wants
> parts off them.

Some do. Some don't. Some sell *the whole car* in running condition.

> Its 1990 and you have ten 85 Escorts. Eight have
> front damage. You pull the front sheet metal off the two without
> front damage. You keep a couple of motors. You keep two intact that
> are good from the cowl back. You crush everything else.

In 2004, all 10 1985 escorts go to the U-pull yard intact. 2 of them are
patched up and sold in the used car lot next door. The rest sit until
well scavaged, the remains are then crushed.

What you say is true of full serve yards and late model cars, but not
all cars are wrecked or die in their first five years of live. The import
yard at the U-pull has a wide variety of mid 80s to 1990s fuel efficent
cars to choose from parts wise, and a couple whole cars for sale. If
fuel prices got high enough the value of those cars may increase enough
to push more of them into the used car section.

Patrick Hosokawa

Brandon Sommerville <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message news:<8afb65780566c48da9121c630ac76a4f@news.terane ws.com>...
> On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 15:05:21 GMT, "Anon" <noway@nohow.not> wrote:
>
> >>
> >>
> >> So, what should have been done after the 73 oil embargo?
> >
> >Not a darned thing. Let the market forces determine MPG. -Dave
> >
> That would only be valid if the market didn't heavily subsidize the
> oil companies. Since gas is cheap there's no motivation to buy
> smaller or more fuel efficient vehicles.

It would also only be valid if the environmental and political costs
could be somehow figured into the costs of driving a low-MPG vehicle.
Market forces are the most efficient way to allocate resources, but
only when all the costs and benefits are factored in.


>
> Taxing the manufacturers is crazy because there will always be
> loopholes that they can exploit (SUVs in this case) which defeat the
> purpose of the regs. Stop the subsidies and see what happens.
>
> I figure we've got about 5 more years before everything goes kablooie.
> It's not that we're running out of oil, it's that we're about half way
> there, which means the easy stuff has been found. Demand keeps
> climbing in North America which is bad enough, but China, IIRC,
> increased the number of cars on their roads by about 70% last year and
> their energy demands have been increasing over the last two years by
> the total amount consumed by Brazil! There's only so much oil
> available and they're going to want a chunk of production.
>
> That means either raise prices, *seriously* search for alternatives,
> start conserving or go to war to keep the oil flowing.
>
> Given that in 2002, Bush said "We need an energy bill that encourages
> consumption", which way do you think it's going to go?

Daniel J. Stern

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004, Brent P wrote:

> > availability problem. Starting is much easier with gaseous fuel, and
> > engine life is longer. And exhaust emissions are clean enough for such
> > engines to be used indoors, which they frequently are.
>
> Ever try to use a basement lab when the propane powered floor buffers are
> being used?

I've been in small spaces when the propane powered floor buffers were
being used, yes.

> I couldn't get enough air to breath.... And the emissions
> did have an effect on me.

Then those particular floor buffers' engines were not in proper repair.

DS

dizzy

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 14:43:39 GMT, tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com
(Brent P) wrote:

>The mauraduer (sp?) failed
>IMO because it still looks like a police cruiser.

Plus, it was marketed as a fast car, but wasn't fast.

DTJ

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 02:18:12 GMT, tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com
(Brent P) wrote:

>If taxing fuel to encourage conservation wasn't possible, then having
>one CAFE number instead of the complex system or no CAFE at all would
>have been better. No CAFE at all we would have fuel economy levels only
>a tad lower for passenger cars than they are today IMO. The reason for
>that is emission regs that still would have brought about the control
>system improvements without CAFE being there. But without CAFE, people
>would not have converted to trucks. Instead of driving an 18mpg enclosed
>truck, people would be driving a 22mpg passenger car. Sure, those really
>huge cars would have lived on, but they would get better fuel economy
>than the SUVs.

I don't disagree with you, but I don't see your point.

How exactly did CAFE encourage buyers to shop for SUVs over cars?

I do see that for manufacturers, CAFE as it stands today allows them
to ignore fuel efficiency in what are labeled trucks.

I just don't think they are the same.

Nate Nagel

DTJ wrote:

> On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 02:18:12 GMT, tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>
>>If taxing fuel to encourage conservation wasn't possible, then having
>>one CAFE number instead of the complex system or no CAFE at all would
>>have been better. No CAFE at all we would have fuel economy levels only
>>a tad lower for passenger cars than they are today IMO. The reason for
>>that is emission regs that still would have brought about the control
>>system improvements without CAFE being there. But without CAFE, people
>>would not have converted to trucks. Instead of driving an 18mpg enclosed
>>truck, people would be driving a 22mpg passenger car. Sure, those really
>>huge cars would have lived on, but they would get better fuel economy
>>than the SUVs.
>
>
> I don't disagree with you, but I don't see your point.
>
> How exactly did CAFE encourage buyers to shop for SUVs over cars?
>
> I do see that for manufacturers, CAFE as it stands today allows them
> to ignore fuel efficiency in what are labeled trucks.
>
> I just don't think they are the same.

It encourages buyers to buy SUVs because the cars they want aren't
available. You don't think that GM, Ford, Chrysler could design an
build an updated version of the 60s family sedan very easily, and at a
price competitive with other cars on the market? With sportier hardtop
and convertible versions for those who like such things? I believe they
could, but CAFE would suffer so it won't happen.

nate

--
go dry to reply.
http://www.toad.net/~njnagel

Dave C.

> I don't disagree with you, but I don't see your point.
>
> How exactly did CAFE encourage buyers to shop for SUVs over cars?
>

Because they have no frickin' CHOICE!!! If you understand CAFE, then you
would understand that it discourages making large CARS, but does not
discourage making trucks of any size. Thus, if you have a family, you are
forced to buy a truck . . . one that looks an awful lot like a jacked-up
family car, and gets really shitty fuel economy. This is because CAFE
regulated family cars out of existence.

It didn't encourage buyers to shop for SUVs, it just made it impossible for
many buyers to shop for CARS. So lots of people were forced to buy SUVs as
"plan B" as plan A was legislated out of existence. -Dave

DTJ

On Sun, 02 May 2004 04:27:38 GMT, "Bernard Farquart"
<bfarquart@notmyemail.net> wrote:

>
>"DTJ" <dtj@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:17o890l8hotjrukg8nr0b6hjuons8pv8r6@4ax.com.. .
>> On Sat, 01 May 2004 09:10:10 -0500, edward ohare
>> <edward_ohare@nospam.yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >>report it stolen, and when it's recovered unrepairable, use the
>> >>insurance proceeds to buy a new vehicle.
>>
>> >However, may I point out that insurance owes Actual Cash Value which
>> >we've already determined is very low.
>>
>> That depends. Not everybody buys the same insurance.
>True, but every insurance company makes money by taking it in, not
>sending it out, so most have that stipulation.
>
>Have you read your (boring, long) policy?

Don't need to. I have typical insurance, but some people pay for
replacement cost. Now some will argue that the replacement cost went
down, but this is not true. If you did this illegal activity early
enough, the blue book (or whatever damn color insurance companies use)
would still be the higher cost.