Re: [AMC-List] AMC-List Digest, Vol 9, Issue 54 TRUCKS.SUV's...etc

[Joe <jgray_55@xxxxxxxxx>]

I Gotta ask. HOW in the he** did we get sooooo
involved in even caring about what mileage a new
truck/suv gets..OR better yet...WHO drives them???? Or
better yet /WHY they drive them?? I ALWAYS thought
that was what was great about America...we can CHOOSE
what we WANT to do??? Or am i missing something and
WAYYYY off base here? What  the he&& does any of this
have to do with
AMX,Jav,Gremlin,Ambassador,Americans.....etc???? HAD
to ask!! Sure i'll gbet reamed for this
one...hahahahaha! Happy amc'n to all!Joe
--- amc-list-request@xxxxxxx wrote:

> Send AMC-List mailing list submissions to
> 	amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web,
> visit
> 	http://www.amc-list.com/mailman/listinfo/amc-list
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body
> 'help' to
> 	amc-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	amc-list-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it
> is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of AMC-List digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>    1. re EPA/DOT standards (farna@xxxxxxx)
>    2. Re: AMC-List Digest, Vol 9,	Issue 51
> AMBASSADORS (now trucks)
>       (farna@xxxxxxx)
>    3. Re: AMC-List Digest, Vol 9, Issue 51
> AMBASSADORS (now trucks)
>       (Mark Price)
>    4. Re; AMBASSADORS (now trucks) (John Elle)
>    5. Voicing an Opinion (Brien Tourville)
>    6. Re: Voicing an Opinion (Mark Price)
>    7. Re: AMC Spirit questions (Tom Jennings)
>    8. Re: AMC-List Digest, Vol 9, Issue 51
> AMBASSADORS (now trucks)
>       (Tom Jennings)
>    9. Re: Voicing an Opinion (Tom Jennings)
>   10. Re: 51 ambassadors & trucks (Eddie Stakes)
>   11. Film at 11:00 or Belly up to the trough!!!
> (Mark Price)
>   12. Re: AMC-List Digest, Vol 9, Issue 51
> AMBASSADORS (now trucks)
>       (Mark Price)
>   13. Re: AMC Spirit questions (Mark Price)
> 
> 
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 12:41:57 +0000
> From: farna@xxxxxxx
> Subject: [AMC-List] re EPA/DOT standards
> To: mail@xxxxxxxxxxxx (AMC-List)
> Message-ID:
> 
>
<102120061241.1894.453A1595000C160A0000076621602813020E029D0E00@xxxxxxx>
> 	
> 
> http://www.cfact.org/site/print.asp?idarticle=233
> 
> That article is a bit skewed:
> "So the facts are clear.  Contrary to much of what
> you hear, SUVs are not the safety or environmental
> villains they are made out to be."
> 
> I'm not so sure...
> 
> "Light truck fuel efficiency has increased 55
> percent since the 1970s. In fact, in many instances,
> today's light trucks and SUV's get better gas
> mileage than compact cars of the 1970s."
> 
> True, but there are also more being used just for
> crusing around in, and they don't get the mileage
> that smaller, lighter, same-year cars get. 
> 
> "...the new car fleet average fuel economy has
> doubled from about 14 mpg to 28 mpg and light trucks
> have improved by 50 percent."
> 
> Note how they conveniently left out how much light
> trucks/big SUVs have imporved! I'd leave the smaller
> cross-over, more practical vehicles out of this
> argument -- it's the most truck-like that I think
> they are skewing/defending here. Average mpg for a
> large SUV/half-ton truck with six is in the low 20s
> on the highway, but that with sixes. At least half
> (probably more) are V-8s that get in the high teens
> and MIGHT hit 20 if driven carefully. So half-ton
> capacity vehicles have improved on average (across
> the board) from about 8 to 16 mpg. Proponents will
> use lighter capacity, smaller engined vehicles to
> dilute the figures, and they look good when you only
> use one of each model to get the average for a
> manufacturers line-up, but when looking at
> production numbers the V-8s will overshadow the
> sixes (no fours in half-tons!). Think Explorer or
> Trailbalzer and larger. Lots of sixes in that group,
> but they only get 22 mpg highway (rated -- actual is
> usually a little less for most d!
>  rivers)
> . That might put the high for trucks/SUVs that size
> and larger (the majority) at 19 mpg? I think more
> like 18, but haven't crunched the numbers. I'm not
> "picking" on the larger vehicles -- the smaller,
> lighter ones are made more for passenger conveyances
> and to get better mileage though, much more
> practical for that purpose too. 
> 
> "If safety is the highest priority for a driver,
> they should choose the vehicle type with the lowest
> overall fatality rate. According to The Insurance
> Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), that vehicle
> type is the largest of the SUVs."
> 
> So let's all go out and buy Peterbilts. Let's not
> even consider that more damage to the other
> vehicle/property is doen by a larger vehicle. I'll
> be the first to say that if one of us has to go, I'd
> rather it be one of you rather than me (and I'm sure
> you guys feel the same way!), but driving a
> behemouth then charging over the roads like you own
> them is a bit on the selfish side! I've had big
> vehicles come over on me and switch lanes or pull
> out in front of me (much to close!) where the driver
> would have thought a bit more carefully in a smaller
> or more average size vehicle. 
> 
>      "So the facts are clear.  Contrary to much of
> what you hear, SUVs are not the safety or
> environmental villains they are made out to be."
> 
> Clear as mud, now that the bottom of the pool's been
> all stirred in!!
> 
> Someone mentioned an exception for real work
> vehicles for EPA/DOT standards. That wouldn't work,
> not in simplest terms anyway. There would have to be
> a change in what consitutes a passenger vs. utility
> vehicle. That's what has manufacturers skewing the
> rules now, and is to easy to abuse. There isn't much
> difference in the efficiency and power of trucks and
> SUVs now -- hardly enough to notice that much. The
> safety standards are what's mostly pushed, and for
> the more luxurious those are being brought up now
> due to consumer concerns and competition. Some
> standards like bumper height are different, but can
> be designed around easy enough given a few years
> notice. In simplest terms it would be best to have a
> GVW standard and put it at the biggest SUVs. I don't
> think many will buy anything bigger than a
> Navigator! 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Frank Swygert
> Publisher, "American Motors Cars" 
> Magazine (AMC)
> For all AMC enthusiasts
> http://farna.home.att.net/AIM.html
> (free download available!)
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 12:48:23 +0000
> From: farna@xxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [AMC-List] AMC-List Digest, Vol 9,
> Issue 51 AMBASSADORS
> 	(now trucks)
> To: mail@xxxxxxxxxxxx (AMC-List)
> Message-ID:
> 
>
<102120061248.5112.453A1716000E3031000013F821602813020E029D0E00@xxxxxxx>
> 	
> 
> Joe, there are people like you that have a truck and
> aren't afraid to use it like one, but you're in
> maybe a 20-25% group. 75-80% just use it for
> transportation and occasioanlly pulling a trailer. 
> 
> --
> Frank Swygert
> Publisher, "American Motors Cars" 
> Magazine (AMC)
> For all AMC enthusiasts
> http://farna.home.att.net/AIM.html
> (free download available!)
> 
> -----original message------------------
> Frank. Now what you said about new trucks is not
> entirely true( no offence).NOT trying to argue but..
> In 2004 i bought a brand new(first BRAND NEW
> vehicle)2004 F150 4x4 FX4 off road supercab.Will
> never
> buy a new vehicle again  SINCE i got laid-off from
> the
> good paying factory job i had back them. There are
> NO
> good paying  jobs available in Illinois for older
> (i'm
> 
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
_______________________________________________
AMC-List mailing list
AMC-List@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.amc-list.com/mailman/listinfo/amc-list

or go to http://www.amc-list.com