Gasoline War

[jarhead]

Freddie

I hope you don't model your life or make your decisions based on a cartoon charactor! Doh!

 

[BoDEAN]

http://www.gaspricewatch.com


cool site

 

[Vector4fun]

Re: Vector4fun

I am puzzled as to why you would take some sort of joy, in seeing the discomfort of others, who simply have a different view than yours on their choice of vehicle? That really bothers me, when people enjoy the discomfort of another human. Why will you be "tickled" to see someone else in distress?

Then you and your fellow SUV drivers feel pangs of guilt that this country is grossly over-dependant on foreign oil? Do you suffer remorse that *I* have to pay for EXPENSIVE yearly emmissions testing SOLELY because the air is poluted by thousands of inefficient vehicles? Does it bother you that our roads and bridges are falling apart, beat to death by more traffic than they were designed to carry, and my road taxes are going up?

I didn't think so. I imagine you have as much compassion for my issues as I have for yours.

I expect you will not answer the question I pose as to your mean spirited attitude on this, but will probably pontificate about why you have the only PROPER conveyance, and people who own a truck or SUV DESERVE to suffer.

Here's what I'll "pontificate". I don't know a half dozen people who drive a 1 ton crew cab or Suburban that NEEDS one for any reason other than vanity. That's it. It's simply a "MACHO" minivan to them. I don't have a single issue with a rancher or farmer or contractor who NEEDS such a vehicle. I understand that some areas of the country have a lot of snow and ice, But four out of five *I* know here in urban Texas that claim they "need" one are only spewing BS to justify the $550/mo payment to their wives or themselves. It snowed all of 1/4" this winter. Lasted about three hours.

I heard all the same crap back in the '70s, and people eventually dumped their Lincolns and Caddys for pennies on the dollar in some cases. Guess what, after a period of adjustment, life went on. People found Accords, Corollas and diesel Rabbits. Moms still got the kids to school, the kids still got to soccer practice, and Dad got 40 mpg to/from work. People don't die from fuel economy. Now gas is and has been relatively cheap for a decade, and this country is right back in the same predicament it was in the '70s. (btw my son reports gas in Japan is around $3.80/gal) I simply assume history is going to repeat it's self. So drive what you want, be it a $40k SUV or BMW 500 series. I'll only have sympathy for the BMW driver.

 

[jarhead]

I never asked for your sympathy, nor do I want it. I was curious only as to why you would take joy in someone else getting into finacial difficulty. That seems perverted to me.

I take issue when you, or anyone else, feels that they are the arbitrator of what my needs or wants are. You become the official "line drawer" that no one should cross. Someone else might draw the line that cuts you and your values out. Maybe they will feel that you, with your six cylinder pick up, and your wife with the accord, are hurting mother earth too much for their sensibilties. They may then recommend that you should commute to work on roller blades or a pogo stick. I bet you would not like their "line". The reason America is great, is that we have free choice, and have markets that will control prices.

That you would find joy in someones distress is what offends me.

 

[enigma]

Re: Re: Vector4fun

Do you suffer remorse that *I* have to pay for EXPENSIVE yearly emmissions testing SOLELY because the air is poluted by thousands of inefficient vehicles?
I [/B]

Sorry Vector, but you're off base with this one. A modern computer controlled SUV is no less efficient than an Accord. I'd be willing to bet that lawn mowers emit more smog into the central
Texas skys than do our SUV's. If you really want to help clean the air, get rid of mowers, weed eaters, blowers, boats, and older autos. The emissions tests you refer to, are in place to police vehicles that emit more than the allowed levels of pollutants. The tests are a way to force the owners of older autos to maintain their cars in the proper manner. I read once in a auto trade publication that the modern, well maintained auto emits nothing more than water over 99% of the time. Those F350 duallys you dislike may be wasting fuel according to your standards, but they aren't adding to pollution.

Another way to help increase overall efficiency would be for you to encourage your reps to legislate a tax advantage for low emision diesel powered vehicles. The technology exists for such powerplants, (most of Europe drives one), but the low grade diesel sold here is not compatible them. Diesel power is wonderful. The average driver would never know that a new VW Beetle was powered by a diesel if he never had to add fuel. That's how quite and responsive they are, they also get 45 to 50MPG. If I was SWA instead of Spirit, I'd be first on the list to buy a TDpowered VW Toureg. I'd have to be on a "list", because they aren't sold here, yet.

regards,
enigma

 

[Vector4fun]

Enigma,

I'll have to differ with you on this one. The following is from a 2003 report to Congress regarding SUV and light truck emissions:

Emissions Standards

Before 1975, all light trucks were classified by EPA as “light duty vehicles”, i.e.
passenger cars. However, in a case brought by International Harvester, the U.S. Court of
Appeals concluded that light trucks should be classified differently, due to the agricultural
and commercial nature of their use.15 Therefore, light trucks were given their own
classification and have faced less stringent emissions standards since MY1975. Under
the current CAA “Tier 1” standards, light trucks are allowed to emit higher levels of
pollution with each heavier weight class. Furthermore, Tier 1 standards for light trucks
are generally less stringent than those for passenger cars. Only vehicles in the LDT1 class
meet the same standards as passenger cars.16 Most SUVs and pickups, and all vans, are
currently permitted to emit 29% to 47% more carbon monoxide (CO) and 75% to 175%
more nitrogen oxides (NOx ) than passenger cars. (40 CFR 86)

Note, those figures are for "light" trucks, and the F-350 dually you mention doesn't even qualify as a light truck, so it's much worse. But I agree with the rest of your post.

 

[BornAgainPagan]

jarhead,

No disrespect to you either.

First. You obviously do have a justified need but, you are in the minority. My contention that most do not need one for the various reasons (ego, vanity etc.) still stands. I say this because I actively keep up with the automotive industry through many methods such as keeping up with numerous publications to name a few.

Second. You said;

Crappy handling and rollovers???? My expedition handles better than any vehicle I have ever driven. I saw dozens of rollovers on that trip through Wyoming, and ALL of them were sedans and mini vans.

Your observations are merely anecdotal. Yes, SUV's do have crappy handling and higher occurences of roll-over accidents. Simple physics for one. SUV's have a higher CG. Also, just look at the stats from the non-profit Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. http://www.hwysafety.org/

The facts speak for themselves.

Obviously I wasn't talking about heavy hauling when I suggested mini vans. It just so happens that most (not all, not you) SUV owners use their SUV's for grocery shopping and shuttling kids. This can be done in a mini van.

 

[jarhead]

Pagan,

Are you suggesting that families should own two different types of vehicles for multi functions? In other words, they should buy a $30,000 Dodge Caravan for groceries and hauling the kids around, and then a $35,000 Pick Up truck or SUV (which is really a pick-up decked out with jazzy interior) for their heavy duty needs? That just seems a bit extreme to me. When you see the “soccer mom” in the SUV at the play ground in an SUV, are you automatically assuming that she does not have a true need for that type of utility vehicle, for other purposes?