Gasoline Madness;When to Stop

[W3RSW]

-ah, good for you. I saw a very spiffed up, bronze H2 for sale parked in good view of I-79 today.   Don't stampede; use the best of economic thinking.
You might even get a better deal on a very little used one other than brand new.

 Some of the alternative thought processes remind me of an old tune... (if your in your 30's); not too old for the rest of us.

Granted that fuel efficient cars are a lot better built and more reliable these days, but can't get the tune out of my mind even if I can't remember most of the words.

"La La LaLa sumpin', in their Ugos.... "

It'll come back to me.

[KB2WIG]

In a Yugo
As the snow flies

At a used car lot on the edge of town
A liberal guy and a liberal gal
Buy a Yugo

And they drive with pride

Cause if there's one thing that this world needs
It's environmental friends who'll take the lead
In a Yugo

They say, "people don't you understand
Those suburbans are ruining the land"
But they'll wish they had a full size van one day
They point fingers at you and me
They say we're too blind to see
But do we simply use our heads
And choose another way?

As those small wheels turn
Fifty miles to the gallon
And their knees on their chest
They're gonna save enough gas
For all of the rest
In a Yugo

Then one day on the interstate
They suddenly lose control
They swerve to miss a baby duck
They're squashed beneath a produce truck

But they drove with pride...

And as the crowds drive past a little flat car
You know they saved a lot of gas
But they didnt get far
In a Yugo

And as they're trapped inside
At a used car lot on the other side of town
A liberal guy and a liberal gal
Buy a Yugo....

http://humor.beecy.net/songs/Elvis/

[Opcom]

I have need of a pickup truck. Work requires a 4-door vehicle to receive the generous car allowance. An SUV can be a waste of metal. I'd never have one of the bloated road-pigs, the crew cab pickup gets the same or better miles and can haul more goods. What is very funny is all the stuck-up yuppies with 4x4 SUV's now howling about mileage! They never needed the silly things except to bully others on the road.

[W3RSW]

2WIG,

Wonderful !
Glad you found it.  Played it twice.

... tears to my eyes.
Sure brings back memories....  "huh ho, or ho huh" as VJB would say.

[Bill, KD0HG]

Funny...Seems like no one is ambivalent about SUVs and pickups...Either you like 'em or you hate 'em.

I drive a diesel F-250 for work and I've received a one-finger salute several times lately...Doesn't happen when I'm driving the little Ford Focus- LOL.
Not trying to make a statement, but it's awfully hard to drive up to those mountaintop radio sites with 500# of tools and equipment in the little guy. Or tow a 29' camper...Or a flatbed with four tons of hay...Now, you want a workout, go stack all that hay by hand into a 90 degree barn wearing long sleeves...Takes the meanness right out of you.

((sigh))

[k4kyv]

Sounds like my brother-in-law.  You have a need for it and use it for what it was designed for.

The ones I feel like giving the one-finger salute to are those who make it a point to bully others on the road with their big pickup or SUV but don't dare carry any cargo in the back because they are too afraid of putting a small scratch on the finish.  Kinda reminds me of the slopbucketeers who try to run other people off the frequency with big leenyars complete with lots of blower noise and shitty sounding audio.

A friend of mine bought a Scion xB.  He took me for a spin.  I was impressed with the roominess inside , the comfort for its size and the rectangular boxy shape that would allow it to hold a lot of stuff for its footprint.  But then I looked over the thing and realised that with the tiny wheels and the chassis riding so low to the ground, it wouldn't take a tremendous amount of weight to make it drag the pavement.  Even though there is a lot of cargo space for the size of the car, I doubt that it would carry very many modulation transformers.

[w4bfs]

drive a Yugo in the ghetto ....hmmmmm

[W8EJO]

But what to do if you let yourself get sucked in by the hype and already bought one of the POS's (unless you happen to one of the rare individuals who actually has a need for such a vehicle)? 

Who are you to decide or even opine who "actually has a need for such a vehicle"?

I may actually value the safety of my family over some fuzzy wuzzy environmental dogsqueeze. That's my choice. You may be fine putting your wife & kids in some tiny, tinny death trap. That's your choice. You live with your choice, I'll live with mine, that's America.

Sounds like you'd be happier in commie China where your "choices" are government controlled.



 

[W3RSW]

whoa...

It's a debating point, not to get too riled up about it.

There is a contingent that does drive big SUV's for the social value....  , the statement, the keeping up with the Jones.'      Perhaps there's a contingent that also use cars as an agressive outlet.  And, no doubt, there's a contingent that utilizes the safety aspects as a selling point even before the purchase, but in many cases of those flying the safety flag I have my doubts.

There are also tons of reasons to get a smaller, economical and well constructed truck or car.

I think that type of thinking is what Don meant; not a full ship of the line broadside at any one person's proclivities....

Don may not even respond to such fusilades directly.
Such is the mark of a Gentleman.

Then again....  you may be in for some interesting reading.
 

[K3ZS]

I bought a small SUV that gets 25 mpg on the highway, mainly to pull my "vacation home" , a pop-up camper.    It was getting a little dicey pulling it with my 1980 Impala over the mountains.    Didn't think my 13 year-old Honda would last to much longer if I tried pulling the camper with it.   On a long trip, it is better on the back than the Honda.   There are reasons why people buy the vehicles they need or want.

[W8EJO]

whoa...

It's a debating point, not to get too riled up about it. ;
Don may not even respond to such fusilades directly.
Such is the mark of a Gentleman.

Then again....  you may be you know what's best for me. in for some interesting reading.
 

It riles me when others want to make my decisions because they see themselves as having some special, anointed wisdom. It's the height of arrogance & condescension to think you (or Don or anyone else) knows what is best for me.

A gentleman does not condescend upon the decisions of others when he has no clue what went into those decisions.

This type of arrogance & condescension is the genesis of tyranny.

[k4kyv]

But what to do if you let yourself get sucked in by the hype and already bought one of the POS's (unless you happen to one of the rare individuals who actually has a need for such a vehicle)? 

Who are you to decide or even opine who "actually has a need for such a vehicle"?

I may actually value the safety of my family over some fuzzy wuzzy environmental dogsqueeze. That's my choice. You may be fine putting your wife & kids in some tiny, tinny death trap. That's your choice. You live with your choice, I'll live with mine, that's America.

Sounds like you'd be happier in commie China where your "choices" are government controlled.

Man, it looks like they really sucked you in good!

And it's debatable whether or not SUV's and other road-hogs are even as safe as compacts:

...Most of us think that S.U.V.s are much safer than sports cars.   If you asked the young parents of America whether they would rather strap their infant child in the back seat of the TrailBlazer or the passenger seat of the Boxster, they would choose the TrailBlazer.   We feel that way because in the TrailBlazer our chances of surviving a collision with a hypothetical tractor-trailer in the other lane are greater than they are in the Porsche.   What we forget, though, is that in the TrailBlazer you're also much more likely to hit the tractor-trailer because you can't get out of the way in time.   In the parlance of the automobile world, the TrailBlazer is better at "passive safety.  " The Boxster is better when it comes to "active safety," which is every bit as important...

Are the best performers the biggest and heaviest vehicles on the road? Not at all.  Among the safest cars are the midsize imports, like the Toyota Camry and the Honda Accord.   Or consider the extraordinary performance of some subcompacts, like the Volkswagen Jetta.   Drivers of the tiny Jetta die at a rate of just forty-seven per million, which is in the same range as drivers of the five-thousand-pound Chevrolet Suburban and almost half that of popular S.U.V. models like the Ford Explorer or the GMC Jimmy.   In a head-on crash, an Explorer or a Suburban would crush a Jetta or a Camry.   But, clearly, the drivers of Camrys and Jettas are finding a way to avoid head-on crashes with Explorers and Suburbans.   The benefits of being nimble—of being in an automobile that's capable of staying out of trouble—are in many cases greater than the benefits of being big...

[Regarding stopping distance] Bringing five thousand pounds of rubber and steel to a sudden stop involves lots of lurching, screeching, and protesting. The first time, the TrailBlazer took 146.2 feet to come to a halt, the second time 151.6 feet, and the third time 153.4 feet.   The Boxster can come to a complete stop from sixty m.p.h. in about 124 feet.   That's a difference of about two car lengths, and it isn't hard to imagine any number of scenarios where two car lengths could mean the difference between life and death. 

http://www.gladwell.com/2004/2004_01_12_a_suv.html

[Bill, KD0HG]

It's all a tradeoff, Don.

The big vehicles are, as you state, less maneuverable. And you're no better off if you go off the road or collide with a fixed object. A case could be made that one is *more* likely to lose it in a truck or SUV...Most of the vehicles I see in ditches, rolled, collided with highway barriers or upside down are disproportionally SUVs and pickup trucks, and our State Highway Patrol has published the statistics to back my assertion up.

The *only* safety advantage is when two vehicles collide directly into each other, the one with more mass generally wins.

No matter how expert a driver one might be, you can't handle or maneuver a truck or SUV like a far more nimble car.

Pick your poison.

[K3ZS]

SUV's have a high center of gravity, will roll over during evasive maneuvers, where the low center of gravity sedans will not.    There is actually a warning in the owners manual for my Mazda Tribute about this.

[Bill, KD0HG]

Here you go...From today's Denver Post.
The fellow might have avoided this accident if he was in a car:

----------------

A Paonia man was killed yesterday in a rollover accident near Cimarron.

John M. Egger, was driving a maroon 1991 Ford Explorer eastbound on Forest Road 858 about noon, the Colorado State Patrol said in a news release.

Egger was 16.2 miles west of Colorado 50 near Silver Jack Reservoir when he overcorrected after veering off the right side of the road. The Explorer rolled six times down a steep embankment, the release said, ejecting Egger.

He was killed.

[k4kyv]

Question

Which will do the most damage to you and your vehicle: if you are travelling in a Ford Explorer at 60 mph, and hit another Explorer coming directly towards you at 60mph  head-on, or if you are travelling 60 mph and drive head-on into a solid stone wall?

[Bill, KD0HG]

Don:
Aren't you colliding with one object at 120 MPH, or another at 60 MPH?
If so, the answer is obvious.
I once took a professional driving course that an employer paid for, the word was to avoid a head-on at all costs, even if you had to collide with something off the side of the road.

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

Most people don't NEED anything more than a motorcyle or maybe even a bicycle. All this discussion about what type of vehicles people need (even people one doesn't know) seems rather silly.

[W8EJO]

The jury has been in for some time on the relative danger of small cars:


    *     According to a 2003 NHTSA study, when a vehicle is reduced by 100 pounds the estimated fatality rate increases as much as 5.63 percent for light cars weighing less than 2,950 pounds, 4.70 percent for heavier cars weighing over 2,950 pounds and 3.06 percent for light trucks.  Between model years 1996 and 1999, these rates translated into additional traffic fatalities of 13,608 for light cars, 10,884 for heavier cars and 14,705 for light trucks.

    *     A 2001 National Academy of Sciences panel found that constraining automobile manufacturers to produce smaller, lighter vehicles in the 1970s and early 1980s "probably resulted in an additional 1,300 to 2,600 traffic fatalities in 1993."
     
    *     An extensive 1999 USA Today analysis of crash data found that since CAFE went into effect in 1978, 46,000 people died in crashes they otherwise would have survived, had they been in bigger, heavier vehicles.  This, according to a 1999 USA Today analysis of crash data since 1975, roughly figures to be 7,700 deaths for every mile per gallon gained in fuel economy standards.

    *     The USA Today report also said smaller cars - such as the Chevrolet Cavalier or Dodge Neon - accounted for 12,144 fatalities or 37 percent of vehicle deaths in 1997, though such cars comprised only 18 percent of all vehicles.

    *     A 1989 Harvard-Brookings study estimated CAFE "to be responsible for 2,200-3,900 excess occupant fatalities over ten years of a given [car] model years' use."  Moreover, the researchers estimated between 11,000 and 19,500 occupants would suffer serious but nonfatal crash injuries as a result of CAFE.

    *     The same Harvard-Brookings study found CAFE had resulted in a 500-pound weight reduction of the average car.  As a result, occupants were put at a 14 to 27 percent greater risk of traffic death.

    *     Passengers in small cars die at a much higher rate when involved in traffic accidents with large cars.  Traffic safety expert Dr. Leonard Evans estimates that drivers in lighter cars may be 12 times as likely to be killed in a crash when the other vehicle is twice as heavy as the lighter car.

Useful Quotes

In addition to the above studies, the following quotes provide a quick reference point of safety experts' results and statements on the consequences of CAFE regulations as they relate to vehicle safety.

    *     "The negative relationship between weight and occupant fatality risk is one of the most secure findings in the safety literature."
    -Dr. Robert W. Crandall, Brookings Institution, and John D. Graham, Ph.D., Harvard School of Public Health19

    *     "Why Does CAFE kill?  It does so because it constrains the production of larger cars and, in most modes of collision, larger, heavier cars are more protective of their occupants than are small cars."
    -Sam Kazman, Competitive Enterprise Institute

    *     "n terms of just the total number of lives, when I purchase a larger car, there is a reduction of risk.  I'm safer, and so is society overall... We can conclude, beyond any reasonable doubt, that when weight is reduced, as it must be under CAFE, we will increase casualties."
    -Dr. Leonard Evans, physicist, author of Traffic Safety and president of Science Serving Society

    *     "During the past 18 years, the office of Technology Assessment of the United States Congress, the National Safety Council, the Brookings Institution, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the General Motors Research Laboratories and the National Academy of Sciences all agreed that reductions in the size and weight of passenger cars pose a safety threat."
    -National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

    *     "If you want to solve the safety puzzle, get rid of small cars."
    -Brian O'Neill, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety


    *     "The conclusion is that CAFE has caused, and is causing, increased deaths.... CAFE kills, and higher CAFE standards will kill even more."
    -Dr. Leonard Evans, physicist, author of Traffic Safety and President of Science Serving Society

[ka3zlr]

Yea..I wana see a Soccer Mom On a Moped..LOL...

As for Bicycles they are a Worse Hazard, especially when The Racer riders Heed to no road Rules...except they're own...Qute Wittle helmets...an those little Tight Pants...LOLOL.. High Speed Low Drag....

Just Cut back on usage...Walk more, Shop less....save money....they'll get the message...sooner or later...

They wana tighten up the economy, Tighten up yer wallet...

[k4kyv]

Question

Which will do the most damage to you and your vehicle: if you are travelling in a Ford Explorer at 60 mph, and hit another Explorer coming directly towards you at 60mph  head-on, or if you are travelling 60 mph and drive head-on into a solid stone wall?

Don:
Aren't you colliding with one object at 120 MPH, or another at 60 MPH?
If so, the answer is obvious.
I once took a professional driving course that an employer paid for, the word was to avoid a head-on at all costs, even if you had to collide with something off the side of the road.

Actually, if both vehicles are the same mass, the result would be exactly the same, whether you had a  head-on with the other vehicle or hit a solid wall, due to the law of conservation of momentum.

In the case of the head-on with an identical vehicle, each one would decelerate from 60 mph to zero (coming to a complete rest) in a fraction of a second.  If one of the vehicles hit a solid wall, it would undergo exactly the same deceleration (complete rest) and thus undergo the same degree of damage.

But if you were driving a Mini-Cooper at 60 mph and collided head on with a concrete truck at 60 mpg, you would sustain the most damage, because the velocity of the concrete truck would be practically unchanged, while the Mini would decelerate from 60 mph to nearly -60mph, which would be the equivalent of hitting the stone wall at close to 120 mph.  The concrete truck would sustain little damage because it would undergo very little deceleration.

But as far as safety is concerned, the Mini-Cooper would be smaller and more agile, so it might be better able to avoid a collision with another vehicle than the concrete truck or the Ford Explorer.

[k4kyv]

    *     Passengers in small cars die at a much higher rate when involved in traffic accidents with large cars.  Traffic safety expert Dr. Leonard Evans estimates that drivers in lighter cars may be 12 times as likely to be killed in a crash when the other vehicle is twice as heavy as the lighter car.

    *     "Why Does CAFE kill?  It does so because it constrains the production of larger cars and, in most modes of collision, larger, heavier cars are more protective of their occupants than are small cars."
    -Sam Kazman, Competitive Enterprise Institute

    *     "During the past 18 years, the office of Technology Assessment of the United States Congress, the National Safety Council, the Brookings Institution, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the General Motors Research Laboratories and the National Academy of Sciences all agreed that reductions in the size and weight of passenger cars pose a safety threat."
    -National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

But is the problem large cars or small cars?  This is like arguing about whether your beer glass is half empty or half full.  If the majority of vehicles are massive, then a collision is likely to be more devastating if you drive a smaller car.  But if the majority cars are smaller and lighter in weight, then this becomes a non-issue because there is no reason why collisions between two compact cars would cause any more (or any fewer) fatalities than collisions between two heavy cars.  The problem is when a compact car collides with a heavy car.

As the cost of fuel continues to rise, economic and market forces will drive the public to purchase more fuel efficient, thus lighter weight vehicles, so once the SUV's and trophy pick-ups presently on the road wear out (or are abandoned by their owners), the majority of vehicles will be lightweight and compact, just is it has been for decades in places like Europe and Japan where fuel costs have historically been high.

The US sustains roughly 40,000-50,000 road deaths per year, and this seems to be tolerated by the public, without question.  But if you or I designed and marketed any kind of consumer product to the public that killed 40,000 people the first year, not only would the product be recalled; we would most likely end up behind bars for the rest of our natural life, if we managed to avoid being strung up by a lynch mob before the trial.

  "If you want to solve the safety puzzle, get rid of small cars."
    -Brian O'Neill, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

Or get rid of large ones.  Which alternative would save the most energy and the most money?

[W1ATR]

lmao, now this thread finally got interesting and entertaining. I wish everyone did drive little gas sippers, that would leave more diesel for me. (To convert into a delicious deep black coal storm when I push on the skinny pedal)

Personally, it's not about little vs. big vs. this one is safer, or that one is safer, blah blah blah. It's about comfort, period. Life is way too short to be cramped up like sardines in some tinker toy shitbox that can't get out of it's own way over what, a few bucks in a gas.

Stop trying to squeeze a friggin dollar out of everything and lets live our lives.

rant; off
73

Warning: This post was typed with Winbloze XPpro SP3, so this computer is likely to crash before this post is entered on the internet.

[Opcom]

I'd like to see something like the AMC Pacer come back. It was wide, comfy, big hatchback with fold down rear seats, could haul stuff, had decent ground clearance, and had an inline 6 so there was some hood and engine out there for protection. With 110HP, it did well on the road. A modern version could get very good MPG I imagine.

Most new cars stink because they are too narrow. Before I had the truck, I had a 2002 crown victoria. It was a gas hog and used as much fuel as the full size 2004 truck I now have, despite having a smaller engine. I got rid of it because I need to transport plate transformers across state lines and lifting them out of the CV's trunk was a pain. I gave up on small cars after being broadsided by a caddilace while driving a GEO (Suzuki Swift).

There is another issue - people demand alot of horsepower and acceleration, so they can 'own the road' better and get around those annoying slowly driven vehicles. My pickup truck does not need a gasoline 5.3 liter 300HP engine and the fuel consumption that comes with it. It would be OK with 150HP. Engines today are designed to wring every last bit of power out of them, so going with the V6 in a full size truck is asking for trouble down the road if the truck is used as a truck. Diesels are more durable. I am not very concerned with acceleration. Turn slow-go fast -that is how modern over the road tractors are being designed, and they design them to squeeze mileage. It would be great to have a 150HP diesel with 300FT-LBS of torque. More gears would be needed but it would be worth it.

Allison transmission has a few models that convert the engine's power to electricity, and then back to motion. I am not up on the latest innovations, but that kind of design could be used with some batteries for regenerative braking and better economy in stop/go traffic. Like a next generation hybrid.

[WB2RJR]

lmao, now this thread finally got interesting and entertaining.

Couldn't agree more. Nothing like someone with a huge inefficient AM transmitter in their basement that takes up 12 kcs. on the band lecturing others that they should change what they drive to save energy. Can't beat that for entertainment.

Authoritarian socialism.................it's for you own good.

BTW, 20 pages and not a single mention of how you could save money by starting a business. I hope you aren't paying for all your utilities and fuel and vehicle costs with AFTER TAX DOLLARS.

Let me pick on Bill HG for a minute. He has a big truck and a small car. That car should be for personal transportation. All expenses on the truck should be written off on taxes as business expenses including 20% of the value of the truck each year for 5 years until its fully depreciated. Maybe Bill will say he doesn't have a business. So start one. Mowing lawns, putting in fences, rotor tilling, landscaping, maybe driving to rich peoples houses and changing their oil for them(hey, driving to and then hanging around waiting to get it done is a PIA), anything as long as you need the truck to do it.

Lads, this is America.......There are a million ways to make a dollar.

You know hobbies aren't tax deductible but if that basement was used for a mail in electronic repair business, or refurbishing and selling old equipement, or making class E AM rigs and selling them, and its say 30% of the living area of your house then 30% of your utility and maintaince costs comes off your taxable income.

Aspen Brook Cycles & Touring. Do you know what it is? It's a business I started to give motorcycle tours in Colorado, Wyoming, Utah and South Dakota. You don't think I was actually going to buy a new 2006 Triumph Bonneville and not be able to write it off. Not only that but to give tours I have to drive all around on the bike checking out B&Bs, restaurants, hotels etc. All a valid business expense.

Apex Exploration Inc.
Aspen Brook Logging Inc.
Gran Electronics
Aspen Brook Cycles and Touring
Orion Drilling and Construction
Wind River Fishing Unlimited

I don't have a job so I start businesses.

You  can as well. You might even find you can make more money than your regular job.

73

Marty