I absolutely totally agree. I recall when our fathers and their fathers
knew how to make a living and while I am sure that they did complain about
the state of the economy and those in government, they did know how to pour
piss out of a boot. It used to be that most any man could cut his own yard,
change his own flat, change his own oil, repair his house, etc. I see the
biggest problem today is that many with college educations feel that it is
their given right to have a high paying job and feel that they should be
able to sit around, moan, and groan because they have cannot find an equal
paying job in their particular field. I say get over it. Learn a different
trade and expect the pay that the job is worth.
"George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> We've had so much, for so long, for so little, than we've come to expect
> anything and everything for nothing.
>
>
"George" <[email protected]> writes:
>We've had so much, for so long, for so little, than we've come to expect
>anything and everything for nothing.
I don't have a problem paying more for American made woodworking
machinery.
Most of the stuff I would buy isn't made in the USA anymore, or is priced
at 5 to 10 times what an import costs.
A Delta or Jet/Powermatic 15" planer is made in Taiwan or China.
Powermatic still makes big planers in the USA, but they are big time
expensive if you want one with a single phase motor. Lots of big
Powermatic stuff shows up on Ebay, but single phase is very rare.
Brian Elfert
Amen to both!
Dave.
"Mike" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:kdUUb.108346$U%5.555336@attbi_s03...
> Seems like no one wants to pay their dues anymore. It's called instant
> gratification. I'm going to laugh my butt off when these people really
need
> to hustle for a living to keep their aluminum suburbia facades and monster
> SUV's going. It's going to get real interesting. Invest now in your skills
> and abilities, learn how to think and do it yourself, the rest comes easy
> later.
>
>
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:%[email protected]...
> > I absolutely totally agree. I recall when our fathers and their fathers
> > knew how to make a living and while I am sure that they did complain
about
> > the state of the economy and those in government, they did know how to
> pour
> > piss out of a boot. It used to be that most any man could cut his own
> yard,
> > change his own flat, change his own oil, repair his house, etc. I see
the
> > biggest problem today is that many with college educations feel that it
is
> > their given right to have a high paying job and feel that they should
be
> > able to sit around, moan, and groan because they have cannot find an
equal
> > paying job in their particular field. I say get over it. Learn a
> different
> > trade and expect the pay that the job is worth.
> >
> >
> >
> > "George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > We've had so much, for so long, for so little, than we've come to
expect
> > > anything and everything for nothing.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 07:12:46 -0500, "George"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>We've had so much, for so long, for so little, than we've come to expect
>anything and everything for nothing.
>
"It will never be easy to be a Roman."
Thomas J. Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.)
(Real Email is tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
Seems like no one wants to pay their dues anymore. It's called instant
gratification. I'm going to laugh my butt off when these people really need
to hustle for a living to keep their aluminum suburbia facades and monster
SUV's going. It's going to get real interesting. Invest now in your skills
and abilities, learn how to think and do it yourself, the rest comes easy
later.
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:%[email protected]...
> I absolutely totally agree. I recall when our fathers and their fathers
> knew how to make a living and while I am sure that they did complain about
> the state of the economy and those in government, they did know how to
pour
> piss out of a boot. It used to be that most any man could cut his own
yard,
> change his own flat, change his own oil, repair his house, etc. I see the
> biggest problem today is that many with college educations feel that it is
> their given right to have a high paying job and feel that they should be
> able to sit around, moan, and groan because they have cannot find an equal
> paying job in their particular field. I say get over it. Learn a
different
> trade and expect the pay that the job is worth.
>
>
>
> "George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > We've had so much, for so long, for so little, than we've come to expect
> > anything and everything for nothing.
> >
> >
>
>
Michael Baglio <mbaglio wrote:
> Me, I drive an economy car. Granted, I'm fortunate enough that it's a
What all you guys are not teking into account is how this affects
_commerce_. Fine, you drive your 60 MPG Honda hybrid, but what about the
shipping company that stocks the table saw you're about to buy? (LOL had to
keep on topic!) Will you be demanding that Rockler use Honda hybrids too?
What about railroads?
Don't you all know that commerce is the biggest energy user and biggest
polluter out there? You think $2.00/gallon prices don't bite you in the
ass? Of course it does. In many ways.
You might also think that the price of sugar in India does not make a
difference to you, or the price of bananas from Colombia does not affect
you, but it does. Just not directly.
--
gabriel
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 12:54:48 -0700, Kim Whitmyre wrote:
> Another is the drop in the value of the dollar. . .As a matter of fact,
> get ready for higher everything due to the dollar devaluation, because
> it's only going to get worse. As soon as the election is over, the
> interest rates will start to rise: Greenspan is simply doing a political
> hold now.
A devalued dollar does make foreign goods/travel more expensive for us,
and conversely makes our stuff chaeper for foreigners. Since interest
rates are at an all time low, a rise of 400% would get them back to a
reasonable rate, slowing down such things as housing starts and big
ticket purchases, but making investments from overseas pick up. I'm
curious what you your take on any changes in these factors will be
depending on who wins the election. I suspect that what you consider bad
now will turn to good if the opposition wins.
-Doug
--
"A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always
depend on the support of Paul." - George Bernard Shaw
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:27:55 -0500, Renata wrote:
> Just saw on the news yesterday that in the DC area, gas has hit
> $1.64/gal for regular. up 9 cents in 2 weeks and 15 cents since
> January.
The reason there is a big difference in the price of gasoline from state
to state and even city to city is here:
http://www.lmoga.com/taxrates.htm
There appears to be a 24 cent/gallon difference from lowest to highest
rates.
--
-Doug
Bigmike notes:
>Seems like no one wants to pay their dues anymore. It's called instant
>gratification. I'm going to laugh my butt off when these people really need
>to hustle for a living to keep their aluminum suburbia facades and monster
>SUV's going. It's going to get real interesting. Invest now in your skills
>and abilities, learn how to think and do it yourself, the rest comes easy
>later.
I think the facades are now vinyl.
The SUVs and all large status symbol vehicles may become problems sooner. Word
is we'll hit 2 bucks a gallon, without tax increases, on gas this summer and 3
bucks by next summer. You know that whoever's in office wherever is going to
try to slow the jump in prices by adding some more excise taxes to put us
closer to the European model.
That 8 mpg rig looks just fine at a buck and a quarter a gallon, but is really
going to be a status symbol when gas is 3 bucks and higher. Only the truly
wealthy (Cheney & Scalia?) will be able to afford to run them.
Charlie Self
"A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other
way." Mark Twain
http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
In article <[email protected]>, george@least says...
> Perfect. Soak the "rich" folks. Time they paid their fair share.
>
George, George, George, That is only valid if it's the government
soaking the rich. If it's and eevil oil company, then it is pure
rapacious capitalism that must be stopped. :-)
> "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Here is CT the gas companies do "zone pricing" and charge different
> prices
> > in different areas. Why? Because they can get away with it. Has nothing
> to
> > do with supply and demand or transportation cost. Affluent areas and
> inner
> > cities are the highest because those people are lesss likely to travel
> just
> > to buy cheaper gas.
> > Ed
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
[email protected] (Charlie Self) writes:
>The SUVs and all large status symbol vehicles may become problems sooner. Word
>is we'll hit 2 bucks a gallon, without tax increases, on gas this summer and 3
>bucks by next summer. You know that whoever's in office wherever is going to
>try to slow the jump in prices by adding some more excise taxes to put us
>closer to the European model.
Fortunately, or unfortunately, a large part of our economy revolves around
the automobile.
No politician is going to purposely increase the price of gasoline if
he/she can help it. Our economy will tank if automobile sales tumble due
to high gas prices.
I do what I can to save on oil. Both of my vehicles burn diesel and one
gets over 40 MPG!
Brian Elfert
Brian Elfert writes:
>
>Fortunately, or unfortunately, a large part of our economy revolves around
>the automobile.
>
>No politician is going to purposely increase the price of gasoline if
>he/she can help it. Our economy will tank if automobile sales tumble due
>to high gas prices.
>
>I do what I can to save on oil. Both of my vehicles burn diesel and one
>gets over 40 MPG!
Yeah. My pick-up gets about 26 mpg (little 4 cylinder, but I can't seem to find
all these 32 mpg pick-ups I read about), my car gets about 32 on the road, and
I don't think we drive 15,000 miles a year in both. Less than that if we didn't
go home every once in a bit, but we do.
Charlie Self
"A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other
way." Mark Twain
http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
"GeeDubb" <[email protected]> writes:
>I've got two Chevy's that get about 9 or 10 and both are paid for.
>Economics say I can't buy something that does what these do and recoup the
>difference in gas savings though at $3/ gallon it might.
>When are they coming out with a hybrid truck?
Supposed to be a slew of hybrid SUVs and trucks comming in 2005 or 2006.
Some may even have a diesel engine coupled with the electric instead of a
gas engine to save even more fuel.
Brian Elfert
Tom Watson wrote:
> Unfortunately, my 1987 F-150 gets 12.5 mpg on the turnpike (that I
> ride on every day going to work).
My 2003 gets 15 in the city and 17 on the highway. It would probably
get better with the standard gearing, but I got a stump-puller rearend.
My Ranger gets 22 in city, 25 highway, but it's so small for a guy my
size. M daughter loves it though. Luckily I'm one of those rich nurses
you hear about all the time. <G>
Dave in Fairfax
--
reply-to doesn't work
use:
daveldr at att dot net
American Association of Woodturners
http://www.woodturner.org
Capital Area Woodturners
http://www.capwoodturners.org/
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 00:00:57 -0500, "Norman D. Crow"
<[email protected]> brought forth from the murky depths:
[my Javelin]
>Anything that size in a car that size could be fun!
>I think the *hairiest* I ever had was my '64 Ford Sprint convertible with
>260 2bbl. and old T10 4 spd. Unless the rear tires were in pretty good
>shape, you could snap the rear end loose on damp pavement @ 35 in 4th just
>by tapping the throttle a little too hard.
I had a Borg T10 in the Jav, too. Great and bulletproof tranny.
the rear end sounds like Mom's 64-1/2 Mustang dad and I restored.
It was a fun car in a 4-wheel drift only when you put it there.
'Twer a goosey little cah, but with the top down, girls JUMPED in.
>Well, all I've got to say is that "they say" ranks right up there with
>"opinions" and "free advice"(You know, everybody has one, and it's worth
>what you pay for it).
This was straight out of Ford's brochure; the "tout the Triton"
page.
-
The only reason I would take up exercising is || http://diversify.com
so that I could hear heavy breathing again. || Programmed Websites
Tom Watson wrote:
>> Yeah. My pick-up gets about 26 mpg (little 4 cylinder, but I can't
>> seem to find all these 32 mpg pick-ups I read about), my car gets
>> about 32 on the road, and I don't think we drive 15,000 miles a year
>> in both. Less than that if we didn't go home every once in a bit,
>> but we do.
>>
>
>
> Unfortunately, my 1987 F-150 gets 12.5 mpg on the turnpike (that I
> ride on every day going to work).
>
> I wish this was not true, but it is.
>
> I'm driving 30 miles each way. That's 15.000 miles a year.
>
> Just for work.
>
> Oy !
>
>
> Thomas J. Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.)
> (Real Email is tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet)
> http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
I've got two Chevy's that get about 9 or 10 and both are paid for.
Economics say I can't buy something that does what these do and recoup the
difference in gas savings though at $3/ gallon it might.
When are they coming out with a hybrid truck?
Gary
"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 20:36:06 -0500, Tom Watson <[email protected]>
> brought forth from the murky depths:
>
> >Unfortunately, my 1987 F-150 gets 12.5 mpg on the turnpike (that I
> >ride on every day going to work).
> >
> >I wish this was not true, but it is.
>
> What did you find out about costs to put a newer FI V-8
> and 4OD tranny in there, Tawm? Like I said, my 1990 F-150
> w/ 302 + 4OD is now getting about 18mpg on the open road
> betwixt NorCal and SoOr via Mt. Shasta.
If it's anything like my '89 F150, the rest of the vehicle isn't worth
investing that much time & money in. Tom's probably doesn't suffer quite as
much NaCl cancer as mine does, and PA has this law about any hole bigger
than a dime must be repaired to pass inspection. It's old enough to be
almost unsaleable, as Charlie said.
BTW, Tom, what is in your F150? my FI 4.9L(straight 6, far as I'm concerned,
one of the best dam engines Ford ever made) + C6 used to get about 14.2 on
the road.
--
Nahmie
Those who know the least will always know it the loudest.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.576 / Virus Database: 365 - Release Date: 1/30/2004
"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 09:39:07 -0500, "Norman D. Crow"
> <[email protected]> brought forth from the murky depths:
>
> >If it's anything like my '89 F150, the rest of the vehicle isn't worth
> >investing that much time & money in. Tom's probably doesn't suffer quite
as
> >much NaCl cancer as mine does,
>
> >and PA has this law about any hole bigger
> >than a dime must be repaired to pass inspection. It's old enough to be
> >almost unsaleable, as Charlie said.
>
> Bwahahahahahahaha! Nahmie, I'm surprised at you. You've
> obviously never driven in PA. I was there once and it was
> so much worse than (even) CA that I couldn't believe it.
> My buddy explained that all those toll booths went straight
> into the Graft Division of PA State. I didn't argue.
> (or were you being facetious?)
"C-less", I live less than 10mi from PA/NY border, and have travelled a
*lot* of miles in PA, especially when I was OTR. I think perhaps I wasn't
specific enough about the "hole bigger than a dime". That's rust holes in
vehicle bodies that must be fixed to pass inspection.
>
>
> >It's old enough to be almost unsaleable, as Charlie said.
>
> Add up the price of a new vehicle, tag on insurance for same,
> and you've got a $25k hole in your pocket. As do I, he loves
> his old Ford pickup. And upgrading should cost $3k or less.
> That's a no-brainer if the thing is in any kind of shape.
> AND he retains the lowest insurance rate available. Win/Win.
>
>
> >BTW, Tom, what is in your F150? my FI 4.9L(straight 6, far as I'm
concerned,
> >one of the best dam engines Ford ever made) + C6 used to get about 14.2
on
> >the road.
>
> Yeah, the old 300cid straight sixes were great for farm and
> country use, but not as good on the freeways. Amazingly, in a
> full-sized pickup, the V-8s get better gas mileage, especially
> when loaded. I'll forever be in love with the little 5L Ford 302.
> They're one sweet little engine.
Granted! The 300 is a bear, but not really happy on the highway. It's a true
low end torquer. Makes a fantastic short track engine, they claim they can
pull well over 400 ponies out set up for racing, and you don't have to(and
don't want to) rev it high. I've pulled stuff with mine that amazed me.
Right now it's got close to 200K, I need to drop the pan & put new bearings
in the bottom, as it tends to lose oil pressure @ idle after it gets the oil
warmed up. Other than that, still runs fantastic, and I think for pure pull
it could outdo my wife's '98 F150 4.6L Triton.
--
Nahmie
Those who know the least will always know it the loudest.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.576 / Virus Database: 365 - Release Date: 1/30/2004
Brian Elfert wrote:
> "GeeDubb" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> I've got two Chevy's that get about 9 or 10 and both are paid for.
>> Economics say I can't buy something that does what these do and
>> recoup the difference in gas savings though at $3/ gallon it might.
>
>> When are they coming out with a hybrid truck?
>
> Supposed to be a slew of hybrid SUVs and trucks comming in 2005 or
> 2006. Some may even have a diesel engine coupled with the electric
> instead of a gas engine to save even more fuel.
>
> Brian Elfert
I've been waiting for the Ford Escape hybrid suv. It was supposed to come
out this year but I believe they backed it into 2005. But I still need a
pickup for hauling. I haven't seen any of the auto manufacturers talking
about making hybrid pickups.
Gary
"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 13:45:15 -0500, "Norman D. Crow"
> <[email protected]> brought forth from the murky depths:
>
> >That's rust holes in
> >vehicle bodies that must be fixed to pass inspection.
>
> Ah, gotcha. But I understand that the vehicle inspection
> system there is not quite immune to graft, either. One can
> either pay the mechanics or the inspectors to keep their
> cars on the roads.
Ayup!
>
>
> I'm sure that tor torquiest old motor I've ever had was
> that AMC 390. My '70 Phil Donohue Special Javelin put out
> 375hp and 420 ft lbs of torque before I rebuilt it with a
> mildly spicier cam. It probably hit 425hp and more torque
> after that. What a fun car to drive THAT was!
Anything that size in a car that size could be fun!
I think the *hairiest* I ever had was my '64 Ford Sprint convertible with
260 2bbl. and old T10 4 spd. Unless the rear tires were in pretty good
shape, you could snap the rear end loose on damp pavement @ 35 in 4th just
by tapping the throttle a little too hard.
>
>
>
> Probably, but "they say" that you can run the Tritons without
> water through the desert all the way to Vegas without hurting
> it.
Well, all I've got to say is that "they say" ranks right up there with
"opinions" and "free advice"(You know, everybody has one, and it's worth
what you pay for it).
--
Nahmie
Those who know the least will always know it the loudest.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.576 / Virus Database: 365 - Release Date: 1/31/2004
> that AMC 390. My '70 Phil Donohue Special Javelin put out
Phil?????? Phil raced??? Did Mark have a brother I'm unaware of?
By the way, I saw a televison program called "autoline detroit" on
speedvision that had an interview with a bunch of Ford execs detailing the
latest eye candy that will be rolling into showrooms near you and was
surprised at the statement one uttered . He was worried that there would be
no one to buy the cars/trucks because of the pace of offshoring....
On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 20:36:06 -0500, Tom Watson <[email protected]>
brought forth from the murky depths:
>Unfortunately, my 1987 F-150 gets 12.5 mpg on the turnpike (that I
>ride on every day going to work).
>
>I wish this was not true, but it is.
What did you find out about costs to put a newer FI V-8
and 4OD tranny in there, Tawm? Like I said, my 1990 F-150
w/ 302 + 4OD is now getting about 18mpg on the open road
betwixt NorCal and SoOr via Mt. Shasta.
>I'm driving 30 miles each way. That's 15.000 miles a year.
>
>Just for work.
>
>Oy !
Vay!
===========================================================
Save the Endangered Boullions from being cubed!
http://www.diversify.com/stees.html Hilarious T-shirts online
===========================================================
On 07 Feb 2004 14:23:04 GMT, Brian Elfert <[email protected]> brought
forth from the murky depths:
>"GeeDubb" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>I've got two Chevy's that get about 9 or 10 and both are paid for.
>>Economics say I can't buy something that does what these do and recoup the
>>difference in gas savings though at $3/ gallon it might.
>
>>When are they coming out with a hybrid truck?
>
>Supposed to be a slew of hybrid SUVs and trucks comming in 2005 or 2006.
>Some may even have a diesel engine coupled with the electric instead of a
>gas engine to save even more fuel.
I just wish Ford made the good old Unimog. I'd love one.
===========================================================
Save the Endangered Boullions from being cubed!
http://www.diversify.com/stees.html Hilarious T-shirts online
===========================================================
On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 09:39:07 -0500, "Norman D. Crow"
<[email protected]> brought forth from the murky depths:
>If it's anything like my '89 F150, the rest of the vehicle isn't worth
>investing that much time & money in. Tom's probably doesn't suffer quite as
>much NaCl cancer as mine does,
>and PA has this law about any hole bigger
>than a dime must be repaired to pass inspection. It's old enough to be
>almost unsaleable, as Charlie said.
Bwahahahahahahaha! Nahmie, I'm surprised at you. You've
obviously never driven in PA. I was there once and it was
so much worse than (even) CA that I couldn't believe it.
My buddy explained that all those toll booths went straight
into the Graft Division of PA State. I didn't argue.
(or were you being facetious?)
>It's old enough to be almost unsaleable, as Charlie said.
Add up the price of a new vehicle, tag on insurance for same,
and you've got a $25k hole in your pocket. As do I, he loves
his old Ford pickup. And upgrading should cost $3k or less.
That's a no-brainer if the thing is in any kind of shape.
AND he retains the lowest insurance rate available. Win/Win.
>BTW, Tom, what is in your F150? my FI 4.9L(straight 6, far as I'm concerned,
>one of the best dam engines Ford ever made) + C6 used to get about 14.2 on
>the road.
Yeah, the old 300cid straight sixes were great for farm and
country use, but not as good on the freeways. Amazingly, in a
full-sized pickup, the V-8s get better gas mileage, especially
when loaded. I'll forever be in love with the little 5L Ford 302.
They're one sweet little engine.
===========================================================
Save the Endangered Boullions from being cubed!
http://www.diversify.com/stees.html Hilarious T-shirts online
===========================================================
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 08:22:17 -0800, "patrick mitchel"
<[email protected]> brought forth from the murky depths:
>> that AMC 390. My '70 Phil Donohue Special Javelin put out
>
> Phil?????? Phil raced??? Did Mark have a brother I'm unaware of?
Oops, 'twas his other brother Mark. (My old car'll never forgive
me for that one.)
> By the way, I saw a televison program called "autoline detroit" on
>speedvision that had an interview with a bunch of Ford execs detailing the
>latest eye candy that will be rolling into showrooms near you and was
>surprised at the statement one uttered . He was worried that there would be
>no one to buy the cars/trucks because of the pace of offshoring....
Hey, they ARE paying attention, aren't they?
-
The only reason I would take up exercising is || http://diversify.com
so that I could hear heavy breathing again. || Programmed Websites
Larry Jaques responds:
>>> that AMC 390. My '70 Phil Donohue Special Javelin put out
>>
>> Phil?????? Phil raced??? Did Mark have a brother I'm unaware of?
>
>Oops, 'twas his other brother Mark. (My old car'll never forgive
>me for that one.)
Really OOOPS! Long years ago (I think in '71), I was a member of the
International Motorpress Association. We had a press meeting at Lime Rock (CT)
one year, with Mark Donohue in attendance. I got him to give me a demonstration
ride in a full load 'Vette around the course. He told me we didn't need
helmets, as we wouldn't be running race speeds. True. Later, I took the same
'Vette, same course, about 40 mph slower through one of the corners (wearing my
helmet). Could NOT get through that corner without doing a loop. Spun out
several times.
He was a nice guy. That was not a nice car, but it was a CAR! Stomp on that
sucker at maybe 35-40 mph in top gear and spin out like crazy, even with the
widest, stickiest tires then available.
Charlie Self
"Everything has its limit - iron ore cannot be educated into gold." Mark Twain
http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> He was a nice guy. That was not a nice car, but it was a CAR! Stomp on that
> sucker at maybe 35-40 mph in top gear and spin out like crazy, even with the
> widest, stickiest tires then available.
>
When I lived up north of Chicago on the "Chain of Lakes", a winter sport
was to get your car up to top speed on the ice, crank the wheel, and slam
on the brakes! Now THAT was a spinout :-).
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
Larry Blanchard responds:
>
>> He was a nice guy. That was not a nice car, but it was a CAR! Stomp on that
>> sucker at maybe 35-40 mph in top gear and spin out like crazy, even with
>the
>> widest, stickiest tires then available.
>>
>When I lived up north of Chicago on the "Chain of Lakes", a winter sport
>was to get your car up to top speed on the ice, crank the wheel, and slam
>on the brakes! Now THAT was a spinout :-).
We used to wait for the parking lots to freeze solid at the then'new shopping
malls and do loops between the lamp posts. Also used to ice race motorcycles. A
great way to spend a lot of time sliding along on your butt watching your bike
slide even faster (you hope: high side that sucker and it stomps the crap out
of you). I lived in Albany, NY then, and was a lot younger than I even thought
I was.
But that 'Vette was more impressive, spinning out like that on a dry road with
good tires.
Charlie Self
"Everything has its limit - iron ore cannot be educated into gold." Mark Twain
http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
charliediy noted:
>
>But that 'Vette was more impressive, spinning out like that on a dry road
>with
>good tires.
But the point I lost along the way was Mark Donohue. He motored along "well
under race speeds" and when stressed my tail off later to get within 35-40
miles of the same speed in a corner, I simply spun out. And I really wasn't
that bad a driver, though never as good as I thought I was. If you ever get a
chance, ride with somone who is truly world-class. It is an eye-opener and a
large step in your education.
Charlie Self
"Everything has its limit - iron ore cannot be educated into gold." Mark Twain
http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 13:45:15 -0500, "Norman D. Crow"
<[email protected]> brought forth from the murky depths:
>"C-less", I live less than 10mi from PA/NY border, and have travelled a
>*lot* of miles in PA, especially when I was OTR. I think perhaps I wasn't
>specific enough about the "hole bigger than a dime". That's rust holes in
>vehicle bodies that must be fixed to pass inspection.
Ah, gotcha. But I understand that the vehicle inspection
system there is not quite immune to graft, either. One can
either pay the mechanics or the inspectors to keep their
cars on the roads.
>Granted! The 300 is a bear, but not really happy on the highway. It's a true
>low end torquer. Makes a fantastic short track engine, they claim they can
>pull well over 400 ponies out set up for racing, and you don't have to(and
>don't want to) rev it high. I've pulled stuff with mine that amazed me.
I'm sure that tor torquiest old motor I've ever had was
that AMC 390. My '70 Phil Donohue Special Javelin put out
375hp and 420 ft lbs of torque before I rebuilt it with a
mildly spicier cam. It probably hit 425hp and more torque
after that. What a fun car to drive THAT was!
>Right now it's got close to 200K, I need to drop the pan & put new bearings
>in the bottom, as it tends to lose oil pressure @ idle after it gets the oil
>warmed up. Other than that, still runs fantastic, and I think for pure pull
>it could outdo my wife's '98 F150 4.6L Triton.
Probably, but "they say" that you can run the Tritons without
water through the desert all the way to Vegas without hurting
it.
-
The only reason I would take up exercising is || http://diversify.com
so that I could hear heavy breathing again. || Programmed Websites
>Yeah. My pick-up gets about 26 mpg (little 4 cylinder, but I can't seem to find
>all these 32 mpg pick-ups I read about), my car gets about 32 on the road, and
>I don't think we drive 15,000 miles a year in both. Less than that if we didn't
>go home every once in a bit, but we do.
>
Unfortunately, my 1987 F-150 gets 12.5 mpg on the turnpike (that I
ride on every day going to work).
I wish this was not true, but it is.
I'm driving 30 miles each way. That's 15.000 miles a year.
Just for work.
Oy !
Thomas J. Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.)
(Real Email is tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
"Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Unfortunately, my 1987 F-150 gets 12.5 mpg on the turnpike (that I
> ride on every day going to work).
>
> I wish this was not true, but it is.
>
> I'm driving 30 miles each way. That's 15.000 miles a year.
>
> Just for work.
The truly sickening part is that the gasoline is the cheap part of that
expense. The round trip considering the initial cost of the vehicle,
maintenance, insurance, and gas probably costs you about $21.00 a day.
Ideology is the threat.
People will fight (or just die) for their beliefs, even if it means
starving.
Might want to snuggle up a bit to reality.
Oh yes, ever see how much energy a pound of uranium puts out?
Unfortunately, we can no more build the infrastructure for that than we can
to make steel. Too many lawyers and Prius drivers.
"Roy Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I find this thread fascinating. People are saying it's fine to drive
> gas guzzlers because the cost of a new more fuel efficient car can't be
> justified by the savings in gas.
>
> For what it's worth, I drive a Chevy Metro which gets 30-something miles
> per gallon. I'm the gas hog in the family; my wife's Prius gets 45. If
> we all had averaged 38 MPG for the past 30 years, I be we wouldn't have
> fought 2 wars in Iraq in the last 10.
>
> OK, I'll get off my soapbox now.
Perfect. Soak the "rich" folks. Time they paid their fair share.
"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Here is CT the gas companies do "zone pricing" and charge different
prices
> in different areas. Why? Because they can get away with it. Has nothing
to
> do with supply and demand or transportation cost. Affluent areas and
inner
> cities are the highest because those people are lesss likely to travel
just
> to buy cheaper gas.
> Ed
>
>
>
Just saw on the news yesterday that in the DC area, gas has hit
$1.64/gal for regular. up 9 cents in 2 weeks and 15 cents since
January.
May not take til summer...
Renata
On 06 Feb 2004 22:49:34 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
wrote:
-snip-
>The SUVs and all large status symbol vehicles may become problems sooner. Word
>is we'll hit 2 bucks a gallon, without tax increases, on gas this summer and 3
>bucks by next summer. You know that whoever's in office wherever is going to
>try to slow the jump in prices by adding some more excise taxes to put us
>closer to the European model.
>
>That 8 mpg rig looks just fine at a buck and a quarter a gallon, but is really
>going to be a status symbol when gas is 3 bucks and higher. Only the truly
>wealthy (Cheney & Scalia?) will be able to afford to run them.
>
>
>Charlie Self
>"A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other
>way." Mark Twain
>http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
Renata writes:
>Just saw on the news yesterday that in the DC area, gas has hit
>$1.64/gal for regular. up 9 cents in 2 weeks and 15 cents since
>January.
>
>May not take til summer...
Real life strikes again. It's currently from $1.67 to $1.74 here in WV on the
OH border. Cheaper in VA, as usual. Friends out west talk routinely about $1.84
a gallon when it's $1.54 here.
Charlie Self
"Love is not the dying moan of a distant violin - it's the triumphant twang of
a bedspring." S. J. Perelman
http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 07:48:35 -0700, Kim Whitmyre wrote:
> The difficulty is the U.S. has been the #1 consumer, albeit mostly on
> debt-based finance. By making such goods more costly, it will reduce the
> sales of those countries who finance the deficit by buying U.S. T-bills.
> Also, the falling dollar has seriously whacked the accounts of those who
> hold dollars, thus giving them reason to look elsewhere. . .
>
> It doesn't really matter who wins the election in absolute energy terms,
> as neither of the parties have a clue to the fundamentals of energy. Oil
> is depleted and is going to become more expensive, and they do nothing but
> say "drill more holes." The oil majors quit drilling more holes because
> most of them are coming up dry. No serious conservation is occuring, no
> alternative energy plans, no population conversations.
I don't know who you're listening to on the oil stuff, but all that aside,
what the H are "population conversations"?
-Doug
--
"A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always
depend on the support of Paul." - George Bernard Shaw
On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 22:49:34 +0000, Charlie Self wrote:
>
> I think the facades are now vinyl.
>
> The SUVs and all large status symbol vehicles may become problems sooner. Word
> is we'll hit 2 bucks a gallon, without tax increases, on gas this summer and 3
> bucks by next summer. You know that whoever's in office wherever is going to
> try to slow the jump in prices by adding some more excise taxes to put us
> closer to the European model.
>
> That 8 mpg rig looks just fine at a buck and a quarter a gallon, but is really
> going to be a status symbol when gas is 3 bucks and higher. Only the truly
> wealthy (Cheney & Scalia?) will be able to afford to run them.
...and Kerry, Kohl, Rockerfeller, Corzine, Feinstein, Fitzgerald,
Lautenberg, Frist, Edwards, Kennedy, Bingaman, Graham, ...
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/06/13/senators.finances/index.html
-Doug
Doug Winterburn writes:
>> That 8 mpg rig looks just fine at a buck and a quarter a gallon, but is
>really
>> going to be a status symbol when gas is 3 bucks and higher. Only the truly
>> wealthy (Cheney & Scalia?) will be able to afford to run them.
>
>...and Kerry, Kohl, Rockerfeller, Corzine, Feinstein, Fitzgerald,
>Lautenberg, Frist, Edwards, Kennedy, Bingaman, Graham, ...
>
>http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/06/13/senators.finances/index.html
True. Maybe they'll all go duck hunting with Cheney & Scalia, but probably not.
They don't have interests in common..er, conflict.
Charlie Self
"Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you
nothing. It was here first." Mark Twain
http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
What a hoot!
Why is it you infer the basest of motives to those you despise? Is it
because you'd if you could?
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:20040206210525.13001.00001892@mb->
> True. Maybe they'll all go duck hunting with Cheney & Scalia, but probably
not.
> They don't have interests in common..er, conflict.
>
George asks:
>
>What a hoot!
>
>Why is it you infer the basest of motives to those you despise? Is it
>because you'd if you could?
>
>"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:20040206210525.13001.00001892@mb->
>
>> True. Maybe they'll all go duck hunting with Cheney & Scalia, but probably
>not.
>> They don't have interests in common..er, conflict.
Other way around. Their base motives are apparent for anyone who got out of the
barn without blinders. Therefore, they are despicable.
Same point: do you remember the old saying about Caesar's wife? Someone who
must be without even an appearance of sin. That is something many of our SP
justices seem to have forgotten, as have a lot of other people. If you want
people to believe you're even-handed, do not travel with those who are known to
members of a faction.
I'm sure you've heard all that, even if you don't understand it.
Charlie Self
"We're 269 days from the election, and that's several political lifetimes."
TERRY HOLT, Bush campaign spokesman.
http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
I see, the righteousness of the cause determines who's pure of heart?
I'll be looking for your scathing review of the next liberal justice to
speak to the NAACP.
Does that mean, for instance, that someone who's always quoting
manufacturer's reps can't be counted on for unbiased tool reviews?
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >> True. Maybe they'll all go duck hunting with Cheney & Scalia, but
probably
> >not.
> >> They don't have interests in common..er, conflict.
>
> Other way around. Their base motives are apparent for anyone who got out
of the
> barn without blinders. Therefore, they are despicable.
>
> Same point: do you remember the old saying about Caesar's wife? Someone
who
> must be without even an appearance of sin. That is something many of our
SP
> justices seem to have forgotten, as have a lot of other people. If you
want
> people to believe you're even-handed, do not travel with those who are
known to
> members of a faction.
>
> I'm sure you've heard all that, even if you don't understand it.
George responds:
>
>I see, the righteousness of the cause determines who's pure of heart?
>
>I'll be looking for your scathing review of the next liberal justice to
>speak to the NAACP.
>
>Does that mean, for instance, that someone who's always quoting
>manufacturer's reps can't be counted on for unbiased tool reviews?
>
I see. You don't understand. Scalia has a case involving Cheney in front of
him. That is not a speech to the NRA.
I dunno on the next one. Who do you know who is always quoting manufacturers'
reps?
Charlie Self
"We're 269 days from the election, and that's several political lifetimes."
TERRY HOLT, Bush campaign spokesman.
http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
Mark wrote:
> The locals are having children, but these children don't want to work
> in the entry level jobs. Somehow they believe they are entitled to
> start someplace other than the bottom.
No no no, remember we are talking _macro_ economics, not even grouping
people into groups. This is the raw mathematics about youth vs old people.
What I am saying is that mathematically, there are not enough young people
to support the old people.
This aspect of macro-economics has little to do with an individual's
willingness to do a job.
--
gabriel
"Glen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> That can't be the whole reason. California prices, from what I hear, are
> the highest nationwide. Where I am located (desert area) to where I work
> (LA area) the price has ben fairly constant the past several weeks at
> $2.10-$2-20. The DC tax is higher than the CA tax, thus the price should
be
> higher there than here. Unless it's a supply thing. All the politicians
> producing a lot of their own gas. ;-) )
>
> Glen
Here is CT the gas companies do "zone pricing" and charge different prices
in different areas. Why? Because they can get away with it. Has nothing to
do with supply and demand or transportation cost. Affluent areas and inner
cities are the highest because those people are lesss likely to travel just
to buy cheaper gas.
Ed
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 10:34:09 +0000, Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>
>
> > Here is CT the gas companies do "zone pricing" and charge different
> > prices
> > in different areas. Why? Because they can get away with it. Has nothing
> > to do with supply and demand or transportation cost. Affluent areas and
> > inner cities are the highest because those people are lesss likely to
> > travel just to buy cheaper gas.
>
> Another explanation for the higher prices in metro areas is the different
> blends/formulations of oxygenated fuel for EPA requirements. You can
> usually tell if yoou are in one of these areas if you are required to have
> your vehicle(s) tested every year or two before you can re-lisence it/them.
Another is the drop in the value of the dollar. . .As a matter of fact,
get ready for higher everything due to the dollar devaluation, because
it's only going to get worse. As soon as the election is over, the
interest rates will start to rise: Greenspan is simply doing a political
hold now.
Kim
Renata <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Just saw on the news yesterday that in the DC area, gas has hit
> $1.64/gal for regular. up 9 cents in 2 weeks and 15 cents since
> January.
$1.72 for regular here in Portlan Or.
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> That's true, but it's a secondary effect. A lot of our economy
> revolves around a constantly expanding population and their need for
> houses, automobiles, etc.. That's why every time the birth rate goes
> down a notch, the politicians notch up immigration.
This is not true. A population with a latrge number of non-workers (ie,
not contributing towards GDP), and I'm talking retirees, _depends_ on
youth. If the population is not repopulating itself (ie, having kids)
fast enough, while the old people are living longer, then the burden of
the old non workers overwhelms the power of the working population (ie,
the kids people had) to support them (read: Social Security and other
government expenses of the old non-workers).
The solution? Force-feed youth into the population through immigration.
It is the only way, since the locals are not having enough kids.
There is a huge problem, for example, in Europe, where the aging
population is not having enough kids. It is a well-known fact around
economist circles that Europe has to get massive immigration to counter
this.
China and India, in contrast, has a lot of youth. It is to their
advantage to break down their trade barriers to allow those people to do
the work locally (ie, "Made in China" exports to the USA, etc...) rather
than have massive emmigration to Europe and the USA (who, to a lesser
extent than Europe, also has an average age of resident rising too fast).
> I'll be dead and gone by the time the bubble bursts. I hope, I hope.
Let's hope politicians do what they should do. Social Security will be
out of funds by 2042 (if I remember correctly).
--
gabriel
>Let's hope politicians do what they should do. Social Security will be
>out of funds by 2042 (if I remember correctly).
>
>--
>gabriel
;) good one!!!
Social Security has no funds. All Al's lockbox has is a bunch of IOUs from you
and me (i.e. the national debt) that can only be "repaid" with future taxes. If
IOU's from yourself represent "having funds" try writing a bunch of IOUs to
yourself andf then go buy a PM66 with them ;)
Dave Hall
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Fortunately, or unfortunately, a large part of our economy revolves around
> the automobile.
>
That's true, but it's a secondary effect. A lot of our economy revolves
around a constantly expanding population and their need for houses,
automobiles, etc.. That's why every time the birth rate goes down a
notch, the politicians notch up immigration.
I'll be dead and gone by the time the bubble bursts. I hope, I hope.
If there's life after death, I'll find Ponzi and re-kill him :-)
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
B a r r y wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 14:08:46 GMT, Doug Winterburn
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Another explanation for the higher prices in metro areas
>
> How about rent / property costs, taxes, and employee costs?
>
> All are higher in metro vs. rural areas.
Then there's taxation, which is generally crazy but especially so with gas
and movie tickets.
Locally the state wanted to raise the gas tax and the owners of gas stations
within 20 miles or so of the border (which in this state subsumes about a
third of the state) were up in arms because they knew that they'd lose all
their business to the neighboring states with lower gas taxes. The
politicians raised the taxes anyway, and you know what? A bunch of gas
stations _did_ end up closing, mostly the "service" stations that did crazy
things like fixing cars instead of sensible things like selling Twinkies.
Only place you can get a car fixed around here now is one of the dealers or
take across the border to a service station that wasn't taxed out of
existence.
>
> Barry
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
On 06 Feb 2004 22:49:34 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
wrote:
>The SUVs and all large status symbol vehicles may become problems sooner. Word
>is we'll hit 2 bucks a gallon, without tax increases, on gas this summer and 3
>bucks by next summer.
Snip, then:
>That 8 mpg rig looks just fine at a buck and a quarter a gallon, but is really
>going to be a status symbol when gas is 3 bucks and higher. Only the truly
>wealthy (Cheney & Scalia?) will be able to afford to run them.
Y'know, Charlie, I've totally stopped believing the gas-price thing.
In '98, I could buy gas for about a buck or so. It threatened to go
up, then _did_ go up, and everybody went nuts.
For a month or two.
Now it's around $1.50, (50% more (!!!)), and who really gives a crap?
When's the last time it even made the list of table topics at the
diner down the street? Seems that people just get used to whatever
happens and adapt.
Me, I drive an economy car. Granted, I'm fortunate enough that it's a
fairly nice econobox, but it's an upper 20s/gallon car just the same.
I don't get the impression that SUV owners complain about gas prices
for any reason other than they think they have to in order to be
socially acceptable amoung us unfortunate po' folk. Which is a hoot
to listen to as they wave bye-bye on the way to take Buffy to ballet.
I think I just forgot what my point was. :\
Michael
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 10:34:09 +0000, Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> Here is CT the gas companies do "zone pricing" and charge different
> prices
> in different areas. Why? Because they can get away with it. Has nothing
> to do with supply and demand or transportation cost. Affluent areas and
> inner cities are the highest because those people are lesss likely to
> travel just to buy cheaper gas.
Another explanation for the higher prices in metro areas is the different
blends/formulations of oxygenated fuel for EPA requirements. You can
usually tell if yoou are in one of these areas if you are required to have
your vehicle(s) tested every year or two before you can re-lisence it/them.
-Doug
--
"A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always
depend on the support of Paul." - George Bernard Shaw
>On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 10:34:09 +0000, Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>
>
>> Here is CT the gas companies do "zone pricing" and charge different
>> prices
>> in different areas. Why? Because they can get away with it. Has nothing
>> to do with supply and demand or transportation cost. Affluent areas and
>> inner cities are the highest because those people are lesss likely to
>> travel just to buy cheaper gas.
>
>Another explanation for the higher prices in metro areas is the different
>blends/formulations of oxygenated fuel for EPA requirements. You can
>usually tell if yoou are in one of these areas if you are required to have
>your vehicle(s) tested every year or two before you can re-lisence it/them.
>
>-Doug
>
Which is, of course the reason for the high California prices. That and their
requirement, I believe, that gas sold in the state be refined there. And their
fight against new refineries. Sort of disingenuous to do all that and then
complain that they are being gouged.
Glad I'm in Maine, I guess, where we only pay the third highest state taxes in
the nation.
John Martin
In article <[email protected]>,
JMartin957 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 10:34:09 +0000, Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Here is CT the gas companies do "zone pricing" and charge different
>>> prices
>>> in different areas. Why? Because they can get away with it. Has nothing
>>> to do with supply and demand or transportation cost. Affluent areas and
>>> inner cities are the highest because those people are lesss likely to
>>> travel just to buy cheaper gas.
>>
>>Another explanation for the higher prices in metro areas is the different
>>blends/formulations of oxygenated fuel for EPA requirements. You can
>>usually tell if yoou are in one of these areas if you are required to have
>>your vehicle(s) tested every year or two before you can re-lisence it/them.
>>
>>-Doug
>>
>
>Which is, of course the reason for the high California prices. That and their
>requirement, I believe, that gas sold in the state be refined there.
Calif. doesn't _require_ refining 'in state'. They *do*, however, have a
set of requirements for any fuel _sold_ in that state -- for pollution-control
reasons -- that necessitates a different 'blend' of fuel and additives.
To meet those requirements, refiners are forced to use more expensive
components, and 'California gasoline' is produced in smaller quantities
than the products for the rest of the country. Both factors contribute
to the higher prices, _over_and_above_ the regional 'overhead costs'
differential.
On 06 Feb 2004 23:38:31 GMT, Brian Elfert <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Fortunately, or unfortunately, a large part of our economy revolves around
>the automobile.
>
>No politician is going to purposely increase the price of gasoline if
>he/she can help it. Our economy will tank if automobile sales tumble due
>to high gas prices.
>
>I do what I can to save on oil. Both of my vehicles burn diesel and one
>gets over 40 MPG!
>
>Brian Elfert
um you may have that backwards. when gas goes through the roof so will
auto sales. everyone with a guzzler will be trying to get something
smaller to save money and the suv's will be cheep as dirt because
nobody wants em. the same thing happened in the 80's when gas went
over a dollar a gallon and we had rationing. the automotive industry
will get a boom and the oil industry will take a large hit. then the
prices will fall on gas again and we will be back to suv ville once
again. this has already happened twice in my lifetime and i suspect it
will happen again and again untill there is no more oil. by then there
will be some other fuel to take its place. skeez
Oh goody - then I can buy meself a truck!
Renata
On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 21:43:45 GMT, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>um you may have that backwards. when gas goes through the roof so will
>auto sales. everyone with a guzzler will be trying to get something
>smaller to save money and the suv's will be cheep as dirt because
>nobody wants em. the same thing happened in the 80's when gas went
>over a dollar a gallon and we had rationing. the automotive industry
>will get a boom and the oil industry will take a large hit. then the
>prices will fall on gas again and we will be back to suv ville once
>again. this has already happened twice in my lifetime and i suspect it
>will happen again and again untill there is no more oil. by then there
>will be some other fuel to take its place. skeez
This is standard radical envirowacko stuff. They favor everything from
forced sterilization to mass murder. To many people on the planet, you know.
I have suggested to these people that they should lead by example and kill
themselves but they seem to not like that idea. They just want everybody
else to get off their planet.
"Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> I don't know who you're listening to on the oil stuff, but all that
aside,
> what the H are "population conversations"?
>
> -Doug
>
> --
> "A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always
> depend on the support of Paul." - George Bernard Shaw
>
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> A devalued dollar does make foreign goods/travel more expensive for us,
> and conversely makes our stuff chaeper for foreigners.
>
The difficulty is the U.S. has been the #1 consumer, albeit mostly on
debt-based finance. By making such goods more costly, it will reduce the
sales of those countries who finance the deficit by buying U.S. T-bills.
Also, the falling dollar has seriously whacked the accounts of those who
hold dollars, thus giving them reason to look elsewhere. . .
It doesn't really matter who wins the election in absolute energy terms,
as neither of the parties have a clue to the fundamentals of energy. Oil
is depleted and is going to become more expensive, and they do nothing
but say "drill more holes." The oil majors quit drilling more holes
because most of them are coming up dry. No serious conservation is
occuring, no alternative energy plans, no population conversations.
Kim
That can't be the whole reason. California prices, from what I hear, are
the highest nationwide. Where I am located (desert area) to where I work
(LA area) the price has ben fairly constant the past several weeks at
$2.10-$2-20. The DC tax is higher than the CA tax, thus the price should be
higher there than here. Unless it's a supply thing. All the politicians
producing a lot of their own gas. ;-) )
Glen
"Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:27:55 -0500, Renata wrote:
>
> > Just saw on the news yesterday that in the DC area, gas has hit
> > $1.64/gal for regular. up 9 cents in 2 weeks and 15 cents since
> > January.
>
> The reason there is a big difference in the price of gasoline from state
> to state and even city to city is here:
>
> http://www.lmoga.com/taxrates.htm
>
> There appears to be a 24 cent/gallon difference from lowest to highest
> rates.
>
> --
> -Doug
>
I find this thread fascinating. People are saying it's fine to drive
gas guzzlers because the cost of a new more fuel efficient car can't be
justified by the savings in gas.
At the same time, we've got threads going lamenting the fact that
Pentair is selling off Delta and the assumption that this will mean
shipping manufacturing jobs overseas, and we should all buy American.
One guy wants to know if his "Made in USA" router is really made here or
just assembled here.
Well, gee guys, where do you think oil comes from? Most of ours is
imported. Kuwait. Mexico. Venezuela. People get bent out of shape if
you buy a Japanese car, but it's perfectly OK to burn 3 times more
Kuwaiti oil in your Detroit gas guzzler than you would in a Japanese
econobox.
For what it's worth, I drive a Chevy Metro which gets 30-something miles
per gallon. I'm the gas hog in the family; my wife's Prius gets 45. If
we all had averaged 38 MPG for the past 30 years, I be we wouldn't have
fought 2 wars in Iraq in the last 10.
OK, I'll get off my soapbox now.
Roy Smith writes:
>I find this thread fascinating. People are saying it's fine to drive
>gas guzzlers because the cost of a new more fuel efficient car can't be
>justified by the savings in gas.
No. Tom said he HAS to drive a gas guzzler because he can't afford to replace
it at the moment. Different thing entirely. It's a vehicle that is probably
close to unsalable at the moment.
>For what it's worth, I drive a Chevy Metro which gets 30-something miles
>per gallon. I'm the gas hog in the family; my wife's Prius gets 45. If
>we all had averaged 38 MPG for the past 30 years, I be we wouldn't have
>fought 2 wars in Iraq in the last 10.
I drove a Chevy Metro until last year. Not bad for a car I had to put on like a
girdle, but the seat backs kept snapping off. It's a Suzuki, anyway. I bought
that little thing when I had a contract job that required a 65 mile daily round
trip. My pick-up got about 14-15 mpg. Used Metro cost me $4600, IIRC. Of
course, GM in its wisdom has quit making them.
Unfortunately for your premise, 30 years ago, there were almost no cars that
got 38 mpg. Still aren't many.
Charlie Self
"Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you
nothing. It was here first." Mark Twain
http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
[email protected] (Charlie Self) writes:
>I drove a Chevy Metro until last year. Not bad for a car I had to put on like a
>girdle, but the seat backs kept snapping off. It's a Suzuki, anyway. I bought
>that little thing when I had a contract job that required a 65 mile daily round
>trip. My pick-up got about 14-15 mpg. Used Metro cost me $4600, IIRC. Of
>course, GM in its wisdom has quit making them.
Chevy just introduced a new small car similiar to the Metro. Im sure it
is also an import.
>Unfortunately for your premise, 30 years ago, there were almost no cars that
>got 38 mpg. Still aren't many.
My parents bought a 1977 Ford LTD II. That thing was a tank and had a 302
V8, yet it was considered by many a compact car at the time.
Brian Elfert
Brian Elfert states:
>>Unfortunately for your premise, 30 years ago, there were almost no cars that
>>got 38 mpg. Still aren't many.
>
>My parents bought a 1977 Ford LTD II. That thing was a tank and had a 302
>V8, yet it was considered by many a compact car at the time.
>
Not very many. That was the first year I lived in Virginia, and I had 2 of the
then compact cars, a '68 Valiant slant 6 and a 72 Plymouth Duster again with a
slant 6. Neither vehicle got much over 22 MPG. I recently had a Crown Vic
(well, about 5 years ago), and turned it in on the Metro. Amazing POS. Hardly
room for my legs with the seat all the way back--and I'm only about 6'2". Arms
cramped up against the steering wheel. Reminded me of why I'd quit buying
Fords, though I did like my little 302 Mustang II 4 speed. Trouble was, it had
enough power, added to a seriously short wheelbase, that stomping it on a dry
road threated to spin it out, and it would break loose on a gob of spit. Lotta
fun on dirt roads if you had the reflexes for it.
Charlie Self
"We're 269 days from the election, and that's several political lifetimes."
TERRY HOLT, Bush campaign spokesman.
http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
Charlie Self wrote:
>
> Not very many. That was the first year I lived in Virginia, and I had
> 2 of the then compact cars, a '68 Valiant slant 6 and a 72 Plymouth
> Duster again with a slant 6. Neither vehicle got much over 22 MPG.
> Charlie Self
Amaxing how technology has helped with fuel milage. I've had a bunch of
small cars inthe 60s and 70s that got about 20 to 24 mpg. Corvair, LeMans,
Karmann Ghia. I now have a full sized car that will outperform them in
acceleration, top speed, comfort, trunk size, and just about anything else
you name. It gets 24 mpg on a regular basis, 28 on the highway.
Ed
[email protected]
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome
Ed Pawlowski notes:
>> Not very many. That was the first year I lived in Virginia, and I had
>> 2 of the then compact cars, a '68 Valiant slant 6 and a 72 Plymouth
>> Duster again with a slant 6. Neither vehicle got much over 22 MPG.
>> Charlie Self
>
>Amaxing how technology has helped with fuel milage. I've had a bunch of
>small cars inthe 60s and 70s that got about 20 to 24 mpg. Corvair, LeMans,
>Karmann Ghia. I now have a full sized car that will outperform them in
>acceleration, top speed, comfort, trunk size, and just about anything else
>you name. It gets 24 mpg on a regular basis, 28 on the highway.
My first new car was a Chevy. '57 convertible, 283 V8, Duntov dual 4 barrel
package, 3/4 race cam, close ratio 3 speed (on the column). Absolute blast to
drive (stopping was a whole 'nother story). Two firsts: 14" tubeless tires; 12
volt battery. That was it for real tech. That car was something else, though:
it would pass anything on the road but a gas station. Put your foot in it far
enough to cut Carter #2 in and you were looking at something in the vicinity of
6 mpg.
Of course, back then, it didn't much matter, or we thought it didn't.
I wanted the fuel injection (mechanical), but that added something close to
$500 to the price of an already expensive car (I seem to recal $3100). Just
about everything made today has electronic fuel injection, solid state
ignition, 50,000 mile (or more) plugs, no points, sealed breather system to
keep oil fumes out of the air and dirps off the road and on, for a long list.
Most don't have hgh compression engines, of course: I think that 283 was
something on the order of 11 or 11-1/2 to 1. It would ping on extra sometimes
(back when Esso Extra was probably 98 or 99 octane). And it was just about this
time that Esso came out with Golden Esso Extra at $.38.9 per gallon. In
Westchester County, NY, one of the most costly places in the country to live,
then and now. But the higher end gas was needed for thinks like the Studebaker
Hawk, and, a tiny bit later, the Studie Avanti. I seem to recall Chrysler's 300
getting really interesting about that time, too.
Then I joined the Marines, and any chance of even keeping the Chev left. Even
back then, $78 a month before taxes wouldn't make the payments.
Charlie Self
"We're 269 days from the election, and that's several political lifetimes."
TERRY HOLT, Bush campaign spokesman.
http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 15:11:59 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]>
wrote:
|Charlie Self wrote:
|>
|> Not very many. That was the first year I lived in Virginia, and I had
|> 2 of the then compact cars, a '68 Valiant slant 6 and a 72 Plymouth
|> Duster again with a slant 6. Neither vehicle got much over 22 MPG.
|> Charlie Self
|
|Amaxing how technology has helped with fuel milage. I've had a bunch of
|small cars inthe 60s and 70s that got about 20 to 24 mpg. Corvair, LeMans,
|Karmann Ghia. I now have a full sized car that will outperform them in
|acceleration, top speed, comfort, trunk size, and just about anything else
|you name. It gets 24 mpg on a regular basis, 28 on the highway.
I have a 1999 Camaro SS that I bought new. The last new car I
purchased before that was a 1969 Plymouth Roadrunner.
Pretty much the same concept. Big V-8, 2-door coupe, four passenger
(if the Camaro rear seat passengers weigh 40 lbs.), wide tires, stiff
suspensions and crappy build quality.
The Roadrunner was a 125 mph car with 50 mph brakes. The Camaro is a
150+ mph car with brakes to match.
The Roadrunner guzzled 100+ octane super premium leaded gasoline and
spewed pollution. The Camaro runs on 91 octane unleaded and with
modern fuel injection and dual catalytic converters puts out fewer
pollutants than the average dairy cow.
The Roadrunner, on a good day got 10 mpg, the Camaro gets 2 1/2 times
that.
A pristine 1969 Roadrunner is worth twice what a 1999 Camaro SS is
worth [g].
Wes Stewart notes:
>|
>|Amaxing how technology has helped with fuel milage. I've had a bunch of
>|small cars inthe 60s and 70s that got about 20 to 24 mpg. Corvair, LeMans,
>|Karmann Ghia. I now have a full sized car that will outperform them in
>|acceleration, top speed, comfort, trunk size, and just about anything else
>|you name. It gets 24 mpg on a regular basis, 28 on the highway.
>
>I have a 1999 Camaro SS that I bought new. The last new car I
>purchased before that was a 1969 Plymouth Roadrunner.
>
>Pretty much the same concept. Big V-8, 2-door coupe, four passenger
>(if the Camaro rear seat passengers weigh 40 lbs.), wide tires, stiff
>suspensions and crappy build quality.
>
>The Roadrunner was a 125 mph car with 50 mph brakes. The Camaro is a
>150+ mph car with brakes to match.
Oh, man. More memories. Those wide oval tires in '68, '69. Lasted at least 9000
miles if you didn't spin. But did improve the handling. Had a Barracuda 340S,
one of the first off the line, in '68. I was still suffering whatever it is
that makes you occasionally drift up on the Northway and lay into that
sumbitch. First time my first wife hit 100 mph I was driving that and it
matched my best from the '50s, too, at about 135 mph (indicated: probably more
like 115). Sucker floated like crazy at 90 mph and up, and needed two aircraft
carrier lengths to stop. Actually, to slow down, because those all 'round drum
brakes were GONE after one modestly fast 125 to 50 slowdown. It was all gearbox
and hope after that for at least 30 minutes. Which was the reason for heading
for the Northway. Interstates are handy, especially back then at 3 a.m.
Charlie Self
"We're 269 days from the election, and that's several political lifetimes."
TERRY HOLT, Bush campaign spokesman.
http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 06:38:21 GMT, Mark <[email protected]>
wrote:
>>
>
>
>The locals are having children, but these children don't want to work in the
>entry level jobs. Somehow they believe they are entitled to start someplace
>other than the bottom.
aint it the truth. skeez
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 14:08:46 GMT, Doug Winterburn
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Another explanation for the higher prices in metro areas
How about rent / property costs, taxes, and employee costs?
All are higher in metro vs. rural areas.
Barry
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> I don't know who you're listening to on the oil stuff, but all that aside,
> what the H are "population conversations"?
>
>
Do a google on "Colin Campbell," among others, or "peak oil"; geez,
Doug, you didn't make the connection to overpopulation? ;~)
Campbell is a petro geologist who has spent the last 30 years working
for most of the majors. . .I first "saw" him when he gave a lecture at a
German technical college that was transferred to the web.
Kim
gabriel wrote:
>
>
> The solution? Force-feed youth into the population through immigration.
> It is the only way, since the locals are not having enough kids.
The locals are having children, but these children don't want to work in the
entry level jobs. Somehow they believe they are entitled to start someplace
other than the bottom.
--
Mark
N.E. Ohio
Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S. Clemens, A.K.A.
Mark Twain)
When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure ends the suspense.
(Gaz, r.moto)