Built like a Mercedes (?)

From : comments4u

Q: on sun 29 jan 2006 044754 gmt tbone tbonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote it is not a matter of driving skill it is a matter physical size and it not fitting. my truck just fits into my garage length wise and it is a standard cab long bed. a crew cab long bed would not fit and a mega-cab long bed would be almost two feet longer than that. i can see how much farther my truck sticks out in a parking space than many of the cars around it and my buddies crew cabs stick out even farther. this mega-cab would stick out another two feet beyond the length of a crew cab long bed and would probably get its nose or tail clipped by other vehicles unless you parked it out in the boondocks taking up two spaces and the turning radius would probably suck as well. then you could add to that the possible negative public opinion of such a huge unnecessary vehicle when we are already in trouble with our current fuel consumption that could kill sales and their investment in this new model which may happen anyway. g neither of the usas big two are in so much trouble that they are being forced into chapter 11 . . . yet! . . . despite the fact that one of gms big pushes this year will be for its big suvs. and i already park out in bf at the malls and shopping centers where i can take up two spaces so the front end doesnt stick out. only tough place is the parking garage at the navy hospital where they dont have head to head parking slots ;- greg .

Replies:

From : theguy

on sat 11 feb 2006 221221 +0000 pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote theguy wrote and pooh bear wanting to rip on our military. hey again at least we have one. i am sure it wont be long before you see proof of that since we will probably have to come over and save your sorry asses again. save us from what exactly what a stupid comment. you are indeed one serious fantasist. no as i said i can not compare to you in that category. i take my hat off to your fantasisism. graham .

From : tbone

lol i dont think he is going to get that one. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving clare at snyder.on.ca wrote ill respond once only. i have posted the best uk and official us government figures that are available and which are appropriate or links to them. nothing more to be said really. three of you are being just plain silly. i can see it makes you feel big and important. sorry but you are not. you are just your average netkooks and bullies who probably have social problems. seen it all before. you probably have at your closest rest area. .

From : pooh bear

theguy wrote on sat 11 feb 2006 221221 +0000 pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote theguy wrote and pooh bear wanting to rip on our military. hey again at least we have one. i am sure it wont be long before you see proof of that since we will probably have to come over and save your sorry asses again. save us from what exactly what a stupid comment. what a stupid answer. i.e. you dont have one. no surprise there ! graham .

From : max dodge

if you had read and understood the information i provided you would not need to ask the question. it ends up with undisputed figures for the uk of a best of an equivalent of 123 passenger miles per gallon on intercity electrified routes with local services falling to a low of 108. i understand how they tried to convert the electric use to fuel in gallons. i dispute its validity for the reasons ive already stated 1 it is impossible to accurately measure the load on an electric rail system 2 it is impossible to accurately convert watts to gallons by any method least of all one that assumes certain constants that are in fact variables. as such anything that attempts to directly compare one unit of transport to another rather than using a yearly consumption figure for the whole industry will be inaccurate. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author i note that those figues assume the use of internal combustion engines for traction. how about electric trains im not sure how energy consumption would be measured on these given the method of fueling them. i did a brief search and found that most studies measured kw usage over a year rather than individual units. this link provides details of the train weight and passenger loading on a light rail system. http//www.sacrt.com/lightrail.stm i suggest that the lack of data for power use per train is because power use varies widely based on load. load would be difficult to determine as it would be unknown how many passengers were on an entire rail line at one given time. further complicting this most electric transit systems have multiple feed points or substations. as such it would be impossible to measure all of these points and come up with an accurate estimate of the power usage given the mobility of the consumption points. however if you find such data id certainly like to see it. parameters for conversion of gw-h to litres and gallons are as follows 1. power stations are 37% efficient up from 35 in 1990 source is table 5.5 of the digest of united kingdom energy statistics. 2. transmission losses amounted to 4% transport-watch assumption. 3. the net calorific value of diesel is 42.9 giga-joules per tonne and the specific gravity is 0.84. 4. one gallon equates to 4.546 litres 5. hence one gw-h is equivalent to 3600 x 1000/0.37 x 0.96 x 42.9 x 0.84 = 0.281 million litres of diesel burnt in buses or to 0.06187 million imperial gallons. if you had read and understood the information i provided you would not need to ask the question. it ends up with undisputed figures for the uk of a best of an equivalent of 123 passenger miles per gallon on intercity electrified routes with local services falling to a low of 108. huw .

From : max dodge

ill respond once only. i have posted the best uk and official us government figures that are available and which are appropriate or links to them. nothing more to be said really. three of you are being just plain silly. i can see it makes you feel big and important. sorry but you are not. you are just your average netkooks and bullies who probably have social problems. seen it all before. in other words you got lit up like a pinball machine and played like a mechanized piano. you dont like anyones numbers but your own and have no way to dispute our numbers or our rebuttals to your numbers. face it huw as if my numbers werent enough to slam you clare smoked your sorry ass. please do make this your reply only once as those of us in reality are tired of your badly attempted claims. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author clare at snyder.on.ca wrote ill respond once only. i have posted the best uk and official us government figures that are available and which are appropriate or links to them. nothing more to be said really. three of you are being just plain silly. i can see it makes you feel big and important. sorry but you are not. you are just your average netkooks and bullies who probably have social problems. seen it all before. huw .

From : max dodge

fuel use is well documented in the links i gave you or linked pages thereof. it is substantially very substantially in favour of buses and even private cars. there can be no rational dispute of this. except using actual numbers not the fantasist numbers that i have debunked. what assumptions do you dispute. if the coach/bus were used at a higher capacity the figures would be even more in favour of them. all the assumptions are made in favour of the train in order to underline just how much more efficient the bus is despite assumptions leaning towards train. i used your numbers at full capacity for the motorcoaches to prove that your fantasy numbers are just that..... fantasy. i have given you links. if the data is too complex for you to manage that is your problem. for you to doubt the data accuracy is plain silly. there is no possible agenda that would justify your doubt. the fact is ive shown you gph consumption rates done the math using your gph for the motorcoach compared to figures for rail gph and the rail beats it by significant margins. the plain truth is that it does not agree with your view and therefore you will not accept its validity. i have shown significant flaws in the validity not just my disagreement with it. what you seem to miss is that i am a diehard car person i like automobiles. i delight in driving my truck its fun. but as much as i like personal transport the freedom it gives me with the independance to move as i see fit as a less costly rate than rail i am not deluded into thinking that rail is less efficient or a better way to move mass quantities of anything be it freight people or oatmeal. children usually grow out of this at by the time they reach their teens. and yet you persist in the name calling a sure sign that your facts are less than accurate. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author i have posted the links to perfectly valid figures and will let the reader make his own mind up. another failure to understand on your part. its not a matter of opinion the numbers are what they are you have none and ive given plenty. do you abuse some kind of illegal substance heavy bulk transport as i have previously stated is where the train is most efficient. that and underground in major cities. otherwise they are an inefficient and costly irrelevance. average human weighs in at 200lbs. pile 40 of them in a rail car nd you have bulk transport. youve yet to prove that rail transpor is inefficent quite the opposite youve proven nothing in that regard. as to cost that isnt a measure of efficiency and im not saying building a rail line is cheap. but... in the long term it will save huge amounts of fuel which was the original point. fuel use is well documented in the links i gave you or linked pages thereof. it is substantially very substantially in favour of buses and even private cars. there can be no rational dispute of this. here are the figures copied below so that the lazy or plain stupid can read them with the minimum of effort. network south east - 108 passenger-miles per gallon regional services - 123 passenger-miles per gallon intercity - 123 passenger-miles per gallon system wide average - 115 passenger miles per-gallon. - similar to a diesel powered car containing two people but much less than the 200 passenger-miles per gallon available from an express coach with 20 aboard doing 10 miles per gallon. note that the coach bus is less than half full. these coaches have 55 seats or more. i have provided the links to figures that more than confirm this including damning fuel consumption figures per passenger mile with costings. sadly your figures were not accurate given the assumptions that were used to arrive at those figures. what assumptions do you dispute. if the coach/bus were used at a higher capacity the figures would be even more in favour of them. all the assumptions are made in favour of the train in order to underline just how much more efficient the bus is despite assumptions leaning towards train. if you blindly disagree then fair enough nothing will change your mind so there is little more to say. i do note however that you also blindly disagree with us government data on car use ive never commented on u.s. data on auto use so assuming once again what my opinion is would be just that an assumption. so obviously you are totally blinkered in your beliefs and no amount of proper evidence will sway you. indeed you deny its validity and accuracy. without a thorough examination of any report that the u.s. government publishes one has to take into account the funding source and the actual data collection agency. therefore they are no more accurate than any other study source and possibly much more biased. i have given you

From : huw

exactly something i wanted to see if hed admit to doing. since he hasnt oh yeah you knew that all along! everyone believes you lol in fact i had mentioned this in this very conversation so you couldnt possibly have missed it here it is. oh yes please! the uk has a bigger gallon and a bigger price per gallon. you missed it. it goes towards my assertion that his figures are a bit twisted and he doesnt care or likes it that way. 52 mpg is much more in line with a small diesel car but i doubt it gets the same mpg with four adults aboard which he also claims. our 76mpg extra urban figure for the panda which is easily achievable is us63.28. not 52. 72mpg imperial is 59.95us let us not mix units however because all the figures i have provided to you for coach and train and car are in imperial and are therefore valid comparisons with each other. huw .

From : max dodge

max you have been away from it too long. a passenger loco that drives the gen set for heat and ac in the coachs 100 gal. per hour and that is high. these locos are being phased out. a passenger loco with a cummins donkey to drive the gen about 45 gal per hour. no passenger loco runs wot unless pulling a hill or leaving a station. a frieght loco is much higher in consumption but i doubt reachs 100gal per hour. roy the figures were derived from a study that used a gp38 admittedly a 30 year old loco. the 170gph figure was for notch 8 over an hour something that while i wasnt clear in noting it i am aware would never happen. the hope was that huw would figure out that even outmoded loco technology was more efficient than automobiles. with todays computer controlled engine management ive no doubt your numbers are more representitive. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author i see youve decided to clip my numbers without any cause except to decieve anyone reading your replies. here they are again wide open for an hour making 2900+hp a locomotive only burns 170gallons of fuel. max you have been away from it too long. a passenger loco that drives the gen set for heat and ac in the coachs 100 gal. per hour and that is high. these locos are being phased out. a passenger loco with a cummins donkey to drive the gen about 45 gal per hour. no passenger loco runs wot unless pulling a hill or leaving a station. a frieght loco is much higher in consumption but i doubt reachs 100gal per hour. roy with that kind of power you can pull 4000 tons 40 rail cars at 50 mph no problem. thats 200000 ton miles. a truck burning fuel at 5 mpg will go 850 miles on 170 gallons. hauling 25 tons thats 21250 ton miles. if the locomotive is operated properly itll use less fuel since it wont be wide open 100% of the time. now unless you can debunk these figures or have a contradictory source i suggest you are the one with hot air in lieu of numbers. or maybe your facts are simply in the loo. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author stop squirming it is embarrassing to those that read your posts. i am the only one who has provided proof here with links to us doe information. if you have alternative proof which has the same gavitas and is more up-to-date then this is your opportunity to provide it. please dont be shy. please dont be long. hot air buster and fairy stories as you attempt above just fools no-one. the locomotive used in the test isnt even a new improved design its over 30 years old. more numbers huw. got any yet i stand by the figures i supplied in the appropriate place. huw .

From : huw

max you have been away from it too long. a passenger loco that drives the gen set for heat and ac in the coachs 100 gal. per hour and that is high. these locos are being phased out. a passenger loco with a cummins donkey to drive the gen about 45 gal per hour. no passenger loco runs wot unless pulling a hill or leaving a station. a frieght loco is much higher in consumption but i doubt reachs 100gal per hour. roy the figures were derived from a study that used a gp38 admittedly a 30 year old loco. the 170gph figure was for notch 8 over an hour something that while i wasnt clear in noting it i am aware would never happen. the hope was that huw would figure out that even outmoded loco technology was more efficient than automobiles. with todays computer controlled engine management ive no doubt your numbers are more representitive. using real life figures then the uk network average fuel figure is 115 passenger miles to the gallon. one of my cars does an easy 70mpg so with two people on board that is 140 passenger miles to the gallon. with four on board that increases to 280 passenger miles to the gallon. i prefer to use the range rover over long distances with four on board and it averages 32mpg on such a long journey yes its a diesel so even the rr actually betters the efficiency of the train with 122 passenger miles to each gallon on such journeys. 20 people aboard a 55 seater coach at 10mpg gives a real life fuel consumption of 200 passenger miles per gallon which is near double that actually achieved by british railways. the utilised capacity is representative of real life regular long distance bus travel while a group chartering a bus for a special occasion would endeavour to fill to at least 90% capacity giving at 8mpg just under 400pmpg. special occasions arent really relevant here so well stick with real life average of 200pmpg which trounces the real life train figure of 115. these are actual real life figures. huw .

From : wolfpuppy

i have the cummins isb which is one generation back. having noted the better efficiency of diesel fuel over gasoline i made the decision to buy a higher cost vehicle in order to increase my efficency long term i too drive a diesel as one of my rides although it is a mercedes 300sd 1983. i have over 338000 miles on it and it still runs and looks good. however a disappointing thing has happened as of late--diesel fuel tends to be amongst the priciest fuels sometimes even aceing out premium at the pump. for a fuel that is just a cut or so above lubricating oil i find this hard to believe. .

From : raybender

clare at snyder.on.ca wrote comparisons a commuter train carrying 80 passengers requires roughly 710 british thermal units btu of energy per passenger per mile and a trolley with 55 passengers uses around 1050 btu per passenger mile and a one person car some 7380. im having fun just watching everyone duke it out here but had to chime in on this one with my own $.02. since a gallon of gasoline contains 19000 btu/gallon the value of 7380 btu/pass-mile works out to 2.6 miles/gallon or when my wife rides along with me only 1.26 miles per gallon. planning a trip through death valley pretty soon - doesnt look like were going to make it across with only a 16 gallon tank in my car. this one didnt quite pass the smell test. frank .

From : dori a schmetterling

in the netherlands especially cyclists are largely excluded from a lot of the main road network. could one build such a network of cycle paths now in the us or uk possibly. das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- ... unfortunately you cannot exclude motorcyclists or pedestrians. as such 5.2 versus 3.94 is exactly what it is more deaths on the motorway than the railway. suggesting that you can simply eliminate certain forms of death is false it cannot be done in reality and the figures are flawed if one excludes those numbers. ... .

From : dori a schmetterling

it looks like its going to be a case of statistics at dawn twixt you and huw... ;- das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- in each case where ive criticised them ive shown what the problem is by quoting it. at a certain point it becomes silly to continue debunking a person who has little regard for accuracy. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author i must say that i am puzzled by your assertion as the numbers were taken from official websites. why do you criticise them so das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- ... .

From : max dodge

these engines are at their most efficient between 1500 and 2000erpm where they actually produce power at around 215g/kw/hour which is way better than most small car engines. cummins lists this figure as 1800-1950rpm. the only drawback that i can imagine is a supposed supposed because i have never driven one in a light truck application narrow rev band. i assume that it revs more than 2350 in your truck. itll run up to 3000rpm if manually shifted. the narrow rpm band has not been a problem and seems ideally suited to the gearing 3.55 rear axle ratio and travel at about 70mph which turns 1850-1900rpm on the engine while in od. in the tractor maximum power is at 2200 but yours must surely reach somewhere around 2750 no-load with max power at 2600 max torque runs at 420ftlbs stock from about 1200-2800rpm. no load redline is 3400rpm or so while loaded the pcm cuts it back to 3200 or so. having not needed to push it im not as familiar with these figures as i am on my gasoline powered vehicles. if this is the case it needs a lot of gears or it needs to be revved to the governor before upchanging assuming a stick shift under load up hill i run an automatic trans since the 6spd was back ordered when the truck was ordered. i have never had a situation where i let automatic shifting occur where it revved out farther than 2800rpm. this truck doesnt lack for power at low rpm and pulls well in all gears. towing at highway speeds in od is easily done. if i manually shift while towing i usually use 2100rpm or so since im not interested in acceleration at that point. i manually shift prinicipally to hold gears longer than the pcm would via apps readings. thus i can use part throttle and hold gear since the pcm wants mpg not power. the pcm tries to upshift since the truck easily rolls most loads and looks to upshift asap. under hard acceleration while empty itll rev to 2800 automatically while throwing the truck so hard the occupants are snugged into the seats. do not mistake this for being pinned as one might be in a sports car. however for moving 7000lbs it is significant force. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author i have the cummins isb which is one generation back. having noted the better efficiency of diesel fuel over gasoline i made the decision to buy a higher cost vehicle in order to increase my efficency long term. this fails to mention the benefits of having a viable vehicle long after most have worn out. i get about 22mpg when hauling a load on the trailer at 55mph. ill average 19.5 mpg over a long distance trip with speeds of 75mph and periods of travel in urban traffic. these engines are at their most efficient between 1500 and 2000erpm where they actually produce power at around 215g/kw/hour which is way better than most small car engines. the only drawback that i can imagine is a supposed supposed because i have never driven one in a light truck application narrow rev band. i assume that it revs more than 2350 in your truck. in the tractor maximum power is at 2200 but yours must surely reach somewhere around 2750 no-load with max power at 2600 if this is the case it needs a lot of gears or it needs to be revved to the governor before upchanging assuming a stick shift under load up hill huw .

From : huw

these engines are at their most efficient between 1500 and 2000erpm where they actually produce power at around 215g/kw/hour which is way better than most small car engines. cummins lists this figure as 1800-1950rpm. the only drawback that i can imagine is a supposed supposed because i have never driven one in a light truck application narrow rev band. i assume that it revs more than 2350 in your truck. itll run up to 3000rpm if manually shifted. the narrow rpm band has not been a problem and seems ideally suited to the gearing 3.55 rear axle ratio and travel at about 70mph which turns 1850-1900rpm on the engine while in od. in the tractor maximum power is at 2200 but yours must surely reach somewhere around 2750 no-load with max power at 2600 max torque runs at 420ftlbs stock from about 1200-2800rpm. no load redline is 3400rpm or so while loaded the pcm cuts it back to 3200 or so. having not needed to push it im not as familiar with these figures as i am on my gasoline powered vehicles. if this is the case it needs a lot of gears or it needs to be revved to the governor before upchanging assuming a stick shift under load up hill i run an automatic trans since the 6spd was back ordered when the truck was ordered. i have never had a situation where i let automatic shifting occur where it revved out farther than 2800rpm. this truck doesnt lack for power at low rpm and pulls well in all gears. towing at highway speeds in od is easily done. if i manually shift while towing i usually use 2100rpm or so since im not interested in acceleration at that point. i manually shift prinicipally to hold gears longer than the pcm would via apps readings. thus i can use part throttle and hold gear since the pcm wants mpg not power. the pcm tries to upshift since the truck easily rolls most loads and looks to upshift asap. under hard acceleration while empty itll rev to 2800 automatically while throwing the truck so hard the occupants are snugged into the seats. do not mistake this for being pinned as one might be in a sports car. however for moving 7000lbs it is significant force. it revs significantly higher than i thought. i can see what you mean because the diesel auto landcruiser has a similar feeling but i guess less so. from only 4.2 litres it has 200hp. the range rover is a bit different and it has been chipped from 185hp to over 200hp from the bmw 3.0l which has also improved the economy from an average of 27 to just under 30mpg but its five speed is tuned so that the engine torque is not used as much and it changes down early and so the engine revs more. huw .

From : huw

if you had read and understood the information i provided you would not need to ask the question. it ends up with undisputed figures for the uk of a best of an equivalent of 123 passenger miles per gallon on intercity electrified routes with local services falling to a low of 108. i understand how they tried to convert the electric use to fuel in gallons. it is obvious that you miss more than you think... see below. i dispute its validity for the reasons ive already stated 1 it is impossible to accurately measure the load on an electric rail system 2 it is impossible to accurately convert watts to gallons by any method least of all one that assumes certain constants that are in fact variables. as such anything that attempts to directly compare one unit of transport to another rather than using a yearly consumption figure for the whole industry will be inaccurate. im glad you said that because that is how they work out how much electricity is used per passenger mile. so you see the figures are accurate and measured to your satisfaction. it is all explained in the fact sheets. it is unfortunate that you are obviously unable to understand a great proportion of it. huw .

From : pooh bear

max dodge wrote find any car that gets 70-90 mpg as you claimed and ill be interested. make it reality and youll be a millionaire. do that with four passengers as youve claimed and you should top bill gates in no time. his example of the recent diesel panda 1.3l will indeed return something around 70 british mpg as long as its not urban use. some of the small puegeots are very good in this respect too. note that hes using british gallons - 25% bigger than yours - lol ! ;- graham .

From : huw

fuel use is well documented in the links i gave you or linked pages thereof. it is substantially very substantially in favour of buses and even private cars. there can be no rational dispute of this. except using actual numbers not the fantasist numbers that i have debunked. this is obviously over your head. read it again slowly using real life figures then the uk network average fuel figure is 115 passenger miles to the gallon with a best route average of 123pmpg. one of my cars does an easy 70mpg so with two people on board that is 140 passenger miles to the gallon. with four on board that increases to 280 passenger miles to the gallon. i prefer to use the range rover over long distances with four on board and it averages 32mpg on such a long journey yes its a diesel so even the rr actually betters the average efficiency of the train with 122 passenger miles to each gallon on such journeys. 20 people aboard a 55 seater coach at 10mpg gives a real life fuel consumption of 200 passenger miles per gallon which is near double that actually achieved by british railways. the utilised capacity of the bus is representative of real life regular long distance bus travel while a group chartering a bus for a special occasion would endeavour to fill to at least 90% capacity giving at 8mpg just under 400pmpg. special occasions arent really relevant here so well stick with real life average of 200pmpg which trounces the real life train figure of 115. these are actual real life figures of everyday use over a year not some theoretical optimised train filled to capacity. what assumptions do you dispute. if the coach/bus were used at a higher capacity the figures would be even more in favour of them. all the assumptions are made in favour of the train in order to underline just how much more efficient the bus is despite assumptions leaning towards train. i used your numbers at full capacity for the motorcoaches to prove that your fantasy numbers are just that..... fantasy. as i said this is apparently beyond your comprehension because it is abundantly obvious to man and beast that the 200 passenger miles per gallon quoted for a coach is for 20 occupied seats out of 55 which is less than half occupancy. i have given you links. if the data is too complex for you to manage that is your problem. for you to doubt the data accuracy is plain silly. there is no possible agenda that would justify your doubt. the fact is ive shown you gph consumption rates done the math using your gph for the motorcoach compared to figures for rail gph and the rail beats it by significant margins. you show a fundemantal lack of ability to interpret comparitively simple information. the plain truth is that it does not agree with your view and therefore you will not accept its validity. i have shown significant flaws in the validity what you have done is show significant flaws in your intellect. the figures are really quite simple and are repeated in detail above. read it again very slowly and it might sink in. not just my disagreement with it. what you seem to miss is that i am a diehard car person i like automobiles. i delight in driving my truck its fun. but as much as i like personal transport the freedom it gives me with the independance to move as i see fit as a less costly rate than rail i am not deluded into thinking that rail is less efficient or a better way to move mass quantities of anything be it freight people or oatmeal. and i admit that in very limited circumstances it can be the most efficient means of transport. no need to repeat what these are is there. children usually grow out of this at by the time they reach their teens. and yet you persist in the name calling a sure sign that your facts are less than accurate. they are not my facts. they are publicly verifiable facts from british rail and from actual coach use with a few figures for my own two vehicles thrown in for comparison and interest. i can assure you that they are accurate. huw .

From : max dodge

using real life figures then the uk network average fuel figure is 115 passenger miles to the gallon. again from an innacurate source. one of my cars does an easy 70mpg so with two people on board that is 140 passenger miles to the gallon. with four on board that increases to 280 passenger miles to the gallon. a motorcycle doesnt get that mpg and a car with four on board doesnt get the same mpg as it does with one on board. thus your claim goes from slightly outlandish to impossible. i prefer to use the range rover over long distances with four on board and it averages 32mpg on such a long journey yes its a diesel so even the rr actually betters the efficiency of the train with 122 passenger miles to each gallon on such journeys. based on your innacurate rail figures again 20 people aboard a 55 seater coach at 10mpg gives a real life fuel consumption of 200 passenger miles per gallon which is near double that actually achieved by british railways. once again this is not the efficiency of the vehicle but of the use. the coach is capable of 550 passenger miles per gallon. however a loco burning 70gph moving at 50mph and carrying 1000 passengers is 714 pm/g. this assumes that the train is limited to ten cars. couple on another 10 railcars increase fuel usage to 100gph and the train gets 1000pm/g. the utilised capacity is representative of real life regular long distance bus travel while a group chartering a bus for a special occasion would endeavour to fill to at least 90% capacity giving at 8mpg just under 400pmpg. which is precisely the point huw..... use the capacity and be more efficient. special occasions arent really relevant here so well stick with real life average of 200pmpg which trounces the real life train figure of 115. these are actual real life figures. no they arent. that you have to say they are is representitive of the flawed sources. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max you have been away from it too long. a passenger loco that drives the gen set for heat and ac in the coachs 100 gal. per hour and that is high. these locos are being phased out. a passenger loco with a cummins donkey to drive the gen about 45 gal per hour. no passenger loco runs wot unless pulling a hill or leaving a station. a frieght loco is much higher in consumption but i doubt reachs 100gal per hour. roy the figures were derived from a study that used a gp38 admittedly a 30 year old loco. the 170gph figure was for notch 8 over an hour something that while i wasnt clear in noting it i am aware would never happen. the hope was that huw would figure out that even outmoded loco technology was more efficient than automobiles. with todays computer controlled engine management ive no doubt your numbers are more representitive. using real life figures then the uk network average fuel figure is 115 passenger miles to the gallon. one of my cars does an easy 70mpg so with two people on board that is 140 passenger miles to the gallon. with four on board that increases to 280 passenger miles to the gallon. i prefer to use the range rover over long distances with four on board and it averages 32mpg on such a long journey yes its a diesel so even the rr actually betters the efficiency of the train with 122 passenger miles to each gallon on such journeys. 20 people aboard a 55 seater coach at 10mpg gives a real life fuel consumption of 200 passenger miles per gallon which is near double that actually achieved by british railways. the utilised capacity is representative of real life regular long distance bus travel while a group chartering a bus for a special occasion would endeavour to fill to at least 90% capacity giving at 8mpg just under 400pmpg. special occasions arent really relevant here so well stick with real life average of 200pmpg which trounces the real life train figure of 115. these are actual real life figures. huw .

From : huw

using real life figures then the uk network average fuel figure is 115 passenger miles to the gallon. again from an innacurate source. is british rail an inaccurate source i do not believe they would overestimate their fuel consumption. one of my cars does an easy 70mpg so with two people on board that is 140 passenger miles to the gallon. with four on board that increases to 280 passenger miles to the gallon. a motorcycle doesnt get that mpg and a car with four on board doesnt get the same mpg as it does with one on board. thus your claim goes from slightly outlandish to impossible. the car easily exceeds 70mpg with two on board. even hammering along on difficult rural roads in our hilly area i have difficulty getting consumtion below 65mpg. with one on board i have proved to my satisfaction that it is entirely possible to achieve 90mpg. i have provided a link which shows the car and its fuel consumption. you are in denial if you challenge every figure that is plain as your face and claim they are false. i prefer to use the range rover over long distances with four on board and it averages 32mpg on such a long journey yes its a diesel so even the rr actually betters the efficiency of the train with 122 passenger miles to each gallon on such journeys. based on your innacurate rail figures again they are not mine. they are not even those of the site where you read them. they are supplied by the british railway network. 20 people aboard a 55 seater coach at 10mpg gives a real life fuel consumption of 200 passenger miles per gallon which is near double that actually achieved by british railways. once again this is not the efficiency of the vehicle but of the use. the coach is capable of 550 passenger miles per gallon. yes it is capable but the reality of a service bus or non chartered coach is that occupancy is far less. this is also true of the train except at peak times but this has been taken account of in the figures for the train because they count the number of passengers over the year. however a loco burning 70gph moving at 50mph and carrying 1000 passengers is 714 pm/g. this assumes that the train is limited to ten cars. couple on another 10 railcars increase fuel usage to 100gph and the train gets 1000pm/g. the utilised capacity is representative of real life regular long distance bus travel while a group chartering a bus for a special occasion would endeavour to fill to at least 90% capacity giving at 8mpg just under 400pmpg. which is precisely the point huw..... use the capacity and be more efficient. you miss the point completely. the capacity will never be fully utilised because both modes travel on set times and passenger density varies along the route. even if they are empty they must run. special occasions arent really relevant here so well stick with real life average of 200pmpg which trounces the real life train figure of 115. these are actual real life figures. no they arent. that you have to say they are is representitive of the flawed sources. they are certainly actual figures while you seem to wish to use figures for theoretical fully utilised capacity which is impractical and inaccurate and can never be the reality. huw .

From : max dodge

this is obviously over your head. read it again slowly i got it the first time huw. your numbers arent realistic and are based on assumptions not actual data. they are from a website with political bias meaning that not only are the figures inaccurate but may be engineered to be something they are not. these are actual real life figures of everyday use over a year not some theoretical optimised train filled to capacity. what you fail to understand is that is my point. if we utilized the most efficient means of transit to its fullest we would in fact save fuel. but we continue to utilize inefficent means such as automobiles which will never match trains. as i said this is apparently beyond your comprehension because it is abundantly obvious to man and beast that the 200 passenger miles per gallon quoted for a coach is for 20 occupied seats out of 55 which is less than half occupancy. what you fail to grasp is that even at their best numbers your motorcoaches still dont match rail efficiency. you show a fundemantal lack of ability to interpret comparitively simple information. and you show a fundemental lack of ability to address the numbers ive provided in any way preferring instead to insult my intellect. until you address the numbers ive provided at least five times your claims are rubbish. they are not my facts. they are publicly verifiable facts from british rail and from actual coach use with a few figures for my own two vehicles thrown in for comparison and interest. i can assure you that they are accurate. they are not verifiable otherwise i would have agreed with them. find any car that gets 70-90 mpg as you claimed and ill be interested. make it reality and youll be a millionaire. do that with four passengers as youve claimed and you should top bill gates in no time. meanwhile the fantasist is you if you think such a car exists. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author fuel use is well documented in the links i gave you or linked pages thereof. it is substantially very substantially in favour of buses and even private cars. there can be no rational dispute of this. except using actual numbers not the fantasist numbers that i have debunked. this is obviously over your head. read it again slowly using real life figures then the uk network average fuel figure is 115 passenger miles to the gallon with a best route average of 123pmpg. one of my cars does an easy 70mpg so with two people on board that is 140 passenger miles to the gallon. with four on board that increases to 280 passenger miles to the gallon. i prefer to use the range rover over long distances with four on board and it averages 32mpg on such a long journey yes its a diesel so even the rr actually betters the average efficiency of the train with 122 passenger miles to each gallon on such journeys. 20 people aboard a 55 seater coach at 10mpg gives a real life fuel consumption of 200 passenger miles per gallon which is near double that actually achieved by british railways. the utilised capacity of the bus is representative of real life regular long distance bus travel while a group chartering a bus for a special occasion would endeavour to fill to at least 90% capacity giving at 8mpg just under 400pmpg. special occasions arent really relevant here so well stick with real life average of 200pmpg which trounces the real life train figure of 115. these are actual real life figures of everyday use over a year not some theoretical optimised train filled to capacity. what assumptions do you dispute. if the coach/bus were used at a higher capacity the figures would be even more in favour of them. all the assumptions are made in favour of the train in order to underline just how much more efficient the bus is despite assumptions leaning towards train. i used your numbers at full capacity for the motorcoaches to prove that your fantasy numbers are just that..... fantasy. as i said this is apparently beyond your comprehension because it is abundantly obvious to man and beast that the 200 passenger miles per gallon quoted for a coach is for 20 occupied seats out of 55 which is less than half occupancy. i have given you links. if the data is too complex for you to manage that is your problem. for you to doubt the data accuracy is plain silly. there is no possible agenda that would justify your doubt. the fact is ive shown you gph consumption rates done the math using your gph for the motorcoach compared to figures for rail gph and the rail beats it by significant margins. you show a fundemantal lack of ability to interpret comparitively simple information. the plain truth is that it does not agree with your view and therefore you will not accept its validity. i have shown significant flaws in the

From : max dodge

is british rail an inaccurate source i do not believe they would overestimate their fuel consumption. your source isnt british rail its a politcal activist group. the car easily exceeds 70mpg with two on board. even hammering along on difficult rural roads in our hilly area i have difficulty getting consumtion below 65mpg. with one on board i have proved to my satisfaction that it is entirely possible to achieve 90mpg. ill say it again its not a believable claim since motorcycles that weigh significantly less dont get that sort of mpg. i have provided a link which shows the car and its fuel consumption. you are in denial if you challenge every figure that is plain as your face and claim they are false. i havent seen such a link nor do i beleive your claims. they are not mine. they are not even those of the site where you read them. they are supplied by the british railway network. then you should supply the link to the british rail site where they came from. until then your figures are suspect. yes it is capable but the reality of a service bus or non chartered coach is that occupancy is far less. this is also true of the train except at peak times but this has been taken account of in the figures for the train because they count the number of passengers over the year. again you miss the point while proving it. however a loco burning 70gph moving at 50mph and carrying 1000 passengers is 714 pm/g. this assumes that the train is limited to ten cars. couple on another 10 railcars increase fuel usage to 100gph and the train gets 1000pm/g. yup you failed to address my numbers again. this is getting old huw. which is precisely the point huw..... use the capacity and be more efficient. you miss the point completely. the capacity will never be fully utilised because both modes travel on set times and passenger density varies along the route. even if they are empty they must run. sorry but thats not true. service is infinitely variable just as ridership is particularly in heavy travel areas. they are certainly actual figures while you seem to wish to use figures for theoretical fully utilised capacity which is impractical and inaccurate and can never be the reality. had you a clue about rail transit you would know that im not only on the mark but thats clares findings back my position. yet i doubt youll ever actually address my real numbers or anything that clare posted. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author using real life figures then the uk network average fuel figure is 115 passenger miles to the gallon. again from an innacurate source. is british rail an inaccurate source i do not believe they would overestimate their fuel consumption. one of my cars does an easy 70mpg so with two people on board that is 140 passenger miles to the gallon. with four on board that increases to 280 passenger miles to the gallon. a motorcycle doesnt get that mpg and a car with four on board doesnt get the same mpg as it does with one on board. thus your claim goes from slightly outlandish to impossible. the car easily exceeds 70mpg with two on board. even hammering along on difficult rural roads in our hilly area i have difficulty getting consumtion below 65mpg. with one on board i have proved to my satisfaction that it is entirely possible to achieve 90mpg. i have provided a link which shows the car and its fuel consumption. you are in denial if you challenge every figure that is plain as your face and claim they are false. i prefer to use the range rover over long distances with four on board and it averages 32mpg on such a long journey yes its a diesel so even the rr actually betters the efficiency of the train with 122 passenger miles to each gallon on such journeys. based on your innacurate rail figures again they are not mine. they are not even those of the site where you read them. they are supplied by the british railway network. 20 people aboard a 55 seater coach at 10mpg gives a real life fuel consumption of 200 passenger miles per gallon which is near double that actually achieved by british railways. once again this is not the efficiency of the vehicle but of the use. the coach is capable of 550 passenger miles per gallon. yes it is capable but the reality of a service bus or non chartered coach is that occupancy is far less. this is also true of the train except at peak times but this has been taken account of in the figures for the train because they count the number of passengers over the year. however a loco burning 70gph moving at 50mph and carrying 1000 passengers is 714 pm/g. this assumes that the train is limited to ten cars. couple on another 10 railcars increase fuel usage to 100gph and the train gets 1000pm/g. the utilised capacity is representative

From : theguy

on sat 11 feb 2006 230114 +0000 pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote theguy wrote on sat 11 feb 2006 221221 +0000 pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote theguy wrote and pooh bear wanting to rip on our military. hey again at least we have one. i am sure it wont be long before you see proof of that since we will probably have to come over and save your sorry asses again. save us from what exactly what a stupid comment. what a stupid answer. i.e. you dont have one. no surprise there ! graham wow. just more make believe. .

From : max dodge

im glad you said that because that is how they work out how much electricity is used per passenger mile. so you see the figures are accurate and measured to your satisfaction. it is all explained in the fact sheets. it is unfortunate that you are obviously unable to understand a great proportion of it. terrific now accurately convert gallons of fuel to kilowatts of power. and no i dont want a repost of your formula since its impossible to convert it that way. hint clares btus are the only method by which it can be done and his figures are the accurate ones you need. but i doubt youll address anything he said. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author if you had read and understood the information i provided you would not need to ask the question. it ends up with undisputed figures for the uk of a best of an equivalent of 123 passenger miles per gallon on intercity electrified routes with local services falling to a low of 108. i understand how they tried to convert the electric use to fuel in gallons. it is obvious that you miss more than you think... see below. i dispute its validity for the reasons ive already stated 1 it is impossible to accurately measure the load on an electric rail system 2 it is impossible to accurately convert watts to gallons by any method least of all one that assumes certain constants that are in fact variables. as such anything that attempts to directly compare one unit of transport to another rather than using a yearly consumption figure for the whole industry will be inaccurate. im glad you said that because that is how they work out how much electricity is used per passenger mile. so you see the figures are accurate and measured to your satisfaction. it is all explained in the fact sheets. it is unfortunate that you are obviously unable to understand a great proportion of it. huw .

From : theguy

on sun 12 feb 2006 001632 -0000 huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote fuel use is well documented in the links i gave you or linked pages thereof. it is substantially very substantially in favour of buses and even private cars. there can be no rational dispute of this. except using actual numbers not the fantasist numbers that i have debunked. this is obviously over your head. read it again slowly well max you may want to pay attention now. i mean when it comes to being experts on reading slowly the uk guys would be tops. using real life figures then the uk network average fuel figure is 115 passenger miles to the gallon with a best route average of 123pmpg. one of my cars does an easy 70mpg so with two people on board that is 140 passenger miles to the gallon. with four on board that increases to 280 passenger miles to the gallon. i prefer to use the range rover over long distances with four on board and it averages 32mpg on such a long journey yes its a diesel so even the rr actually betters the average efficiency of the train with 122 passenger miles to each gallon on such journeys. 20 people aboard a 55 seater coach at 10mpg gives a real life fuel consumption of 200 passenger miles per gallon which is near double that actually achieved by british railways. the utilised capacity of the bus is representative of real life regular long distance bus travel while a group chartering a bus for a special occasion would endeavour to fill to at least 90% capacity giving at 8mpg just under 400pmpg. special occasions arent really relevant here so well stick with real life average of 200pmpg which trounces the real life train figure of 115. these are actual real life figures of everyday use over a year not some theoretical optimised train filled to capacity. what assumptions do you dispute. if the coach/bus were used at a higher capacity the figures would be even more in favour of them. all the assumptions are made in favour of the train in order to underline just how much more efficient the bus is despite assumptions leaning towards train. i used your numbers at full capacity for the motorcoaches to prove that your fantasy numbers are just that..... fantasy. as i said this is apparently beyond your comprehension because it is abundantly obvious to man and beast that the 200 passenger miles per gallon quoted for a coach is for 20 occupied seats out of 55 which is less than half occupancy. i have given you links. if the data is too complex for you to manage that is your problem. for you to doubt the data accuracy is plain silly. there is no possible agenda that would justify your doubt. the fact is ive shown you gph consumption rates done the math using your gph for the motorcoach compared to figures for rail gph and the rail beats it by significant margins. you show a fundemantal lack of ability to interpret comparitively simple information. the plain truth is that it does not agree with your view and therefore you will not accept its validity. i have shown significant flaws in the validity what you have done is show significant flaws in your intellect. the figures are really quite simple and are repeated in detail above. read it again very slowly and it might sink in. not just my disagreement with it. what you seem to miss is that i am a diehard car person i like automobiles. i delight in driving my truck its fun. but as much as i like personal transport the freedom it gives me with the independance to move as i see fit as a less costly rate than rail i am not deluded into thinking that rail is less efficient or a better way to move mass quantities of anything be it freight people or oatmeal. and i admit that in very limited circumstances it can be the most efficient means of transport. no need to repeat what these are is there. children usually grow out of this at by the time they reach their teens. and yet you persist in the name calling a sure sign that your facts are less than accurate. they are not my facts. they are publicly verifiable facts from british rail and from actual coach use with a few figures for my own two vehicles thrown in for comparison and interest. i can assure you that they are accurate. huw .

From : clare at snyder on ca

on sat 11 feb 2006 235141 -0000 huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote max you have been away from it too long. a passenger loco that drives the gen set for heat and ac in the coachs 100 gal. per hour and that is high. these locos are being phased out. a passenger loco with a cummins donkey to drive the gen about 45 gal per hour. no passenger loco runs wot unless pulling a hill or leaving a station. a frieght loco is much higher in consumption but i doubt reachs 100gal per hour. roy the figures were derived from a study that used a gp38 admittedly a 30 year old loco. the 170gph figure was for notch 8 over an hour something that while i wasnt clear in noting it i am aware would never happen. the hope was that huw would figure out that even outmoded loco technology was more efficient than automobiles. with todays computer controlled engine management ive no doubt your numbers are more representitive. using real life figures then the uk network average fuel figure is 115 passenger miles to the gallon. one of my cars does an easy 70mpg so with two people on board that is 140 passenger miles to the gallon. with four on board that increases to 280 passenger miles to the gallon. you are going to tell me with a straight facer a panda will deliver 70mpg with 4 adults on board give your empty head a shake!!! i prefer to use the range rover over long distances with four on board and it averages 32mpg on such a long journey yes its a diesel so even the rr actually betters the efficiency of the train with 122 passenger miles to each gallon on such journeys. 20 people aboard a 55 seater coach at 10mpg gives a real life fuel consumption of 200 passenger miles per gallon which is near double that actually achieved by british railways. the utilised capacity is representative of real life regular long distance bus travel while a group chartering a bus for a special occasion would endeavour to fill to at least 90% capacity giving at 8mpg just under 400pmpg. special occasions arent really relevant here so well stick with real life average of 200pmpg which trounces the real life train figure of 115. these are actual real life figures. huw *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .

From : dtj

on sat 11 feb 2006 143627 -0500 clare at snyder.on.ca wrote a commuter train carrying 80 passengers requires roughly 710 british thermal units btu of energy per passenger per mile and a trolley with 55 passengers uses around 1050 btu per passenger mile and a one person car some 7380. public transport also saves valuable city space. buses and trains carry more people in each vehicle and if they operate on their own right-of-way particularly in underground tunnels can safely run at much higher speeds. an underground metro can carry 70000 passengers past a certain point in a single lane in one hour surface rapid rail can carry up to 50000 people and a trolley or a bus in a separate lane more than 30000. a lane of private cars with four occupants by contrast can move only about 8000 people per hour. out of the car into the future by marcia d. lowe. ww nov/dec 1990 which is clearly a liberals attempt to sway people to believe that cars should be outlawed. near me is an intersection which used to be one of the top 10 accident sites in illinois. at the time oh about 20 years ago or so that intersection had more than 300000 cars pass per day. clearly that is a little more than 8000 and since the majority of that traffic was not traveling at midnight it is even higher than the average would indicate. oh it is also the intersection of a side street from a neighborhood onto us 30 which at that point is in the middle of park forest illinois and so would not be in any way looked at as a highway. it wasnt even a well made road until they improved that area by making it 3 lanes each way. i am pretty sure that the day time average is closer to 20000 cars an hour. the next thing to look at is the fact that the icg rail line that the chicago metra train uses to bring people from that intersection down town is only useful once people have driven as much as 30 or more miles to get to the train. then they have to walk or use a cab or a bus or another fucking train once they get down town. some people are so focused on showing the superiority of mass transit that they have to ignore all the waste that is required just to get people to the mass transit. the only reason people use metra is because the cost of parking down town exceeds the value they would get by driving. for those who drive down town however the cost of driving to the metra station parking there and then taking mass transit once they get down town far exceeds the cost of driving down town. ************************* dave .

From : pooh bear

clare at snyder.on.ca wrote you are going to tell me with a straight facer a panda will deliver 70mpg with 4 adults on board give your empty head a shake!!! ive no idea how they do those figures wrt number of persons on board but the latest diesel panda can indeed do 70 mpg british gallons http//www.carpages.co.uk/fiat/fiat-panda-31-01-05.aspswitched=on&echo=805349641 the panda 1.3 16v multijet also manages to cover more than 75 mpg outside town and even in the urban environment returns 52 mpg graham .

From : dtj

on sat 11 feb 2006 143747 -0500 clare at snyder.on.ca wrote also from some liberal publication that ignores all the true facts costs that we wish to use to attempt to get idiots to think mass transit works few u.s. drivers realize that including fuel maintenance insurance depreciation and finance charges on their cars they pay $34 for every 100 miles of driving. on a yearly basis it costs the average solo commuter nearly $1700 just to get to work. by contrast the average public transport fare is $14 per 100 miles. out of the car into the future by marcia d. lowe. ww nov/dec 1990 funny my finance charges each year are zero. fuel costs are $9 per 100 miles maintenance is negligible since i refuse to waste money at a dealer and a honda requires virtually no maintenance but figure $3 for that $2 for insurance $0 depreciation. that comes out to $14. now the fare for mass transit may only be $14 but that does not include the cost of road taxes that go to the mass transit that should be going to our roads nor of gasoline taxes that are misdirected and other taxes such as income and sales taxes that go to support metra. real cost probably in the neighborhood of $75. clearly mass transit is far more expensive than autos and does not provide service to the vast majority of people who need to be able to get to work and the store. ************************* dave .

From : dtj

on sat 11 feb 2006 144234 -0500 clare at snyder.on.ca wrote you want more internet info from the same source americans collectively drive nearly as much as the rest of the world combined. not only are they the biggest travelers on the planet they travel interplanetary distances. in 1990 the u.s. auto and truck fleet will travel two trillion miles the distance to the planet pluto and back 364 times. funny nobody i know has ever been to pluto. one - half of all americans have put two cars in their garage. cars sick automobiles ad nauseam by robert schaeffer in greenpeace vol. 15 more than 1/2 of americans have to have both halves of the couple work just to support the family because we keep shipping our jobs over to third world countries like canaduh india and china. ************************* dave .

From : clare at snyder on ca

on sun 12 feb 2006 033218 +0000 pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote clare at snyder.on.ca wrote you are going to tell me with a straight facer a panda will deliver 70mpg with 4 adults on board give your empty head a shake!!! ive no idea how they do those figures wrt number of persons on board but the latest diesel panda can indeed do 70 mpg british gallons but not fully loaded. http//www.carpages.co.uk/fiat/fiat-panda-31-01-05.aspswitched=on&echo=805349641 the panda 1.3 16v multijet also manages to cover more than 75 mpg outside town and even in the urban environment returns 52 mpg graham *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .

From : clare at snyder on ca

on sat 11 feb 2006 211525 -0600 dtj none@nowhere.com wrote which is clearly a liberals attempt to sway people to believe that cars should be outlawed. may be but its on the internet so its every bit as credible as the figures given by huw. im not saying they are accurate but they are no less accurate than those huw is spewing. *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .

From : max dodge

which is clearly a liberals attempt to sway people to believe that cars should be outlawed. rubbish. it is an attempt to get people such as the diehard conservatives who wish to be free of foreign oil to realize that accomplishing that goal will only be done if we move commuters to a more efficient method of transport. near me is an intersection which used to be one of the top 10 accident sites in illinois. at the time oh about 20 years ago or so that intersection had more than 300000 cars pass per day. ok cut it in half for two streets and again by half for each direction. we are now at 75000 per day. suddenly the number passing per hour average is 3125. clearly that is a little more than 8000 um no its not since what they said was 8000 passing one point. clearly your much travelled intersection is well within the figure they mention. and since the majority of that traffic was not traveling at midnight it is even higher than the average would indicate. oh it is also the intersection of a side street from a neighborhood onto us 30 which at that point is in the middle of park forest illinois and so would not be in any way looked at as a highway. it wasnt even a well made road until they improved that area by making it 3 lanes each way. i am pretty sure that the day time average is closer to 20000 cars an hour. um maybe but i doubt it. but lets assume for a moment it is. thats a 12 car train every five minutes. go to 15 cars and the train kicks your intersections ass handily. the next thing to look at is the fact that the icg rail line that the chicago metra train uses to bring people from that intersection down town is only useful once people have driven as much as 30 or more miles to get to the train. then they have to walk or use a cab or a bus or another fucking train once they get down town. well thats why the fucking liberals are suggesting that we develop more rail routes and save people time fuel and hassle. some people are so focused on showing the superiority of mass transit that they have to ignore all the waste that is required just to get people to the mass transit. so youd prefer that people drove all the way instead of just part of the way and that the cities should be filled with parking garages and that isnt a waste the only reason people use metra is because the cost of parking down town exceeds the value they would get by driving. so its not a waste after all. for those who drive down town however the cost of driving to the metra station parking there and then taking mass transit once they get down town far exceeds the cost of driving down town. the point of those of us who are so focussed on showing the efficiency of trains is because we feel the long term benefits at all levels not just to the country but the individuals as well as the cities and suburban areas will far exceed the initial cost of making the location of these rail lines more accessable. at some point the country will wake up. probably right after the wave of inflation that is sure to come with the fuel prices where they are. then people will demand that the government come up with a solution... and itll be light rail routes. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author on sat 11 feb 2006 143627 -0500 clare at snyder.on.ca wrote a commuter train carrying 80 passengers requires roughly 710 british thermal units btu of energy per passenger per mile and a trolley with 55 passengers uses around 1050 btu per passenger mile and a one person car some 7380. public transport also saves valuable city space. buses and trains carry more people in each vehicle and if they operate on their own right-of-way particularly in underground tunnels can safely run at much higher speeds. an underground metro can carry 70000 passengers past a certain point in a single lane in one hour surface rapid rail can carry up to 50000 people and a trolley or a bus in a separate lane more than 30000. a lane of private cars with four occupants by contrast can move only about 8000 people per hour. out of the car into the future by marcia d. lowe. ww nov/dec 1990 which is clearly a liberals attempt to sway people to believe that cars should be outlawed. near me is an intersection which used to be one of the top 10 accident sites in illinois. at the time oh about 20 years ago or so that intersection had more than 300000 cars pass per day. clearly that is a little more than 8000 and since the majority of that traffic was not traveling at midnight it is even higher than the average would indicate. oh it is also the intersection of a side street from a neighborhood onto us 30 which at that point is in the middle of park forest illinois and so would not be in any way looked at as a highway. it wasnt even a well made road until they improv

From : max dodge

exactly something i wanted to see if hed admit to doing. since he hasnt it goes towards my assertion that his figures are a bit twisted and he doesnt care or likes it that way. 52 mpg is much more in line with a small diesel car but i doubt it gets the same mpg with four adults aboard which he also claims. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max dodge wrote find any car that gets 70-90 mpg as you claimed and ill be interested. make it reality and youll be a millionaire. do that with four passengers as youve claimed and you should top bill gates in no time. his example of the recent diesel panda 1.3l will indeed return something around 70 british mpg as long as its not urban use. some of the small puegeots are very good in this respect too. note that hes using british gallons - 25% bigger than yours - lol ! ;- graham .

From : max dodge

funny my finance charges each year are zero. until you buy another car when this one fails. fuel costs are $9 per 100 miles maintenance is negligible since i refuse to waste money at a dealer and a honda requires virtually no maintenance rubbish. its a machine so it wants maintenance. unless you dont change the oil and never put tires or brakes on it you put money into maintenance. but figure $3 for that $2 for insurance $0 depreciation. that comes out to $14. over what period of time or mileage your figures have no basis if you dont quantify the duration over which you spend that money. now the fare for mass transit may only be $14 but that does not include the cost of road taxes that go to the mass transit that should be going to our roads nor of gasoline taxes that are misdirected and other taxes such as income and sales taxes that go to support metra. real cost probably in the neighborhood of $75. more rubbish since you are claiming the costs are altered by corruption taxes and fees that are not only unspecified in cost but are unproven assumptions. clearly mass transit is far more expensive than autos and does not provide service to the vast majority of people who need to be able to get to work and the store. more crap. you havent proven the expense and worse you havent figured out the problem. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author on sat 11 feb 2006 143747 -0500 clare at snyder.on.ca wrote also from some liberal publication that ignores all the true facts costs that we wish to use to attempt to get idiots to think mass transit works few u.s. drivers realize that including fuel maintenance insurance depreciation and finance charges on their cars they pay $34 for every 100 miles of driving. on a yearly basis it costs the average solo commuter nearly $1700 just to get to work. by contrast the average public transport fare is $14 per 100 miles. out of the car into the future by marcia d. lowe. ww nov/dec 1990 funny my finance charges each year are zero. fuel costs are $9 per 100 miles maintenance is negligible since i refuse to waste money at a dealer and a honda requires virtually no maintenance but figure $3 for that $2 for insurance $0 depreciation. that comes out to $14. now the fare for mass transit may only be $14 but that does not include the cost of road taxes that go to the mass transit that should be going to our roads nor of gasoline taxes that are misdirected and other taxes such as income and sales taxes that go to support metra. real cost probably in the neighborhood of $75. clearly mass transit is far more expensive than autos and does not provide service to the vast majority of people who need to be able to get to work and the store. ************************* dave .

From : huw

on sun 12 feb 2006 033218 +0000 pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote clare at snyder.on.ca wrote you are going to tell me with a straight facer a panda will deliver 70mpg with 4 adults on board give your empty head a shake!!! ive no idea how they do those figures wrt number of persons on board but the latest diesel panda can indeed do 70 mpg british gallons but not fully loaded. on a relatively clear road and with just my 300lbs on board but with a difficult undulating and twisty route i have managed to exceed 90mpg when driving with economy in mind. i have never come below 65mpg with two on board and driving fairly quickly if not hammering it in rural wales. next time i travel three up over a fair distance ill get some more real life figures. 75mpg with two on board is not just realistic it is an easy reality. why do you have difficulty with this http//www.whatcar.com/car-review-equipment.aspxrt=622&ed=44339 http//www.whatcar.com/car-review-costs.aspxrt=622&ed=44339&u=0 running costs urban mpg 52.3 extra urban mpg 76.3 combined mpg 65.7 tank capacity gallons 7.7 co2 rating g/km 114 insurance group 2 typical insurance quote 244 % value retained 3yrs/36000mls 46% typical contract hire rate pcm 200 pence per mile 26 servicing cost over 3yrs 570 service intervals 12000 manufacturers warranty 3yr/60k + 3yr paint + 8yr perforation begin 666 sncornerred.gif m1te&.#ea06+//y^qunv!nig8^0^.51vna6n=23mp& m/py! $l+ !80 0;4*d!ji4xzyti 4x#g5 0gna=m=&h7 lsup$#l end .

From : huw

is british rail an inaccurate source i do not believe they would overestimate their fuel consumption. your source isnt british rail its a politcal activist group. they use undisputed figures of actual energy use provided by the railways. no one but you disputes this. the car easily exceeds 70mpg with two on board. even hammering along on difficult rural roads in our hilly area i have difficulty getting consumtion below 65mpg. with one on board i have proved to my satisfaction that it is entirely possible to achieve 90mpg. ill say it again its not a believable claim since motorcycles that weigh significantly less dont get that sort of mpg. you miss much. here it is again and a cursory search for panda multijet will get you reams of confirmitory information. you may not believe it but medium saloons regularly exceed 50mpg here. i have provided a link which shows the car and its fuel consumption. you are in denial if you challenge every figure that is plain as your face and claim they are false. i havent seen such a link nor do i beleive your claims. http//www.carpages.co.uk/fiat/fiat-panda-31-01-05.aspswitched=on&echo=805390436 the fuel use figures you will find repeated for the car in most sites because they are the official eu figures albeit in imperial. they are not mine. they are not even those of the site where you read them. they are supplied by the british railway network. then you should supply the link to the british rail site where they came from. until then your figures are suspect. not all figures come from a web site. from what you have said previously that should make them more credible lol the suppliers of the figures are the individual networks that are plainly listed on the fact sheet which make up british rail. yes it is capable but the reality of a service bus or non chartered coach is that occupancy is far less. this is also true of the train except at peak times but this has been taken account of in the figures for the train because they count the number of passengers over the year. again you miss the point while proving it. i work with reality. you prefer an utopian fantasy. however a loco burning 70gph moving at 50mph and carrying 1000 passengers is 714 pm/g. this assumes that the train is limited to ten cars. couple on another 10 railcars increase fuel usage to 100gph and the train gets 1000pm/g. yup you failed to address my numbers again. this is getting old huw. which is precisely the point huw..... use the capacity and be more efficient. you miss the point completely. the capacity will never be fully utilised because both modes travel on set times and passenger density varies along the route. even if they are empty they must run. sorry but thats not true. service is infinitely variable just as ridership is particularly in heavy travel areas. it is the reality. trains and all public transport on medium hauls out of city must run to strict timetables in order to satisfy the customer who do not all enter at the first or launch point and in order to link up with other vehicles to distribute or gather passengers to various destinations. they are certainly actual figures while you seem to wish to use figures for theoretical fully utilised capacity which is impractical and inaccurate and can never be the reality. had you a clue about rail transit you would know that im not only on the mark but thats clares findings back my position. yet i doubt youll ever actually address my real numbers or anything that clare posted. i have addressed all sensible points. as illustrated above i do not believe that you would admit to red being actually red if it didnt suit you. huw .

From : huw

this is obviously over your head. read it again slowly i got it the first time huw. your numbers arent realistic and are based on assumptions not actual data. they are from a website with political bias meaning that not only are the figures inaccurate but may be engineered to be something they are not. these are actual real life figures of everyday use over a year not some theoretical optimised train filled to capacity. what you fail to understand is that is my point. if we utilized the most efficient means of transit to its fullest we would in fact save fuel. but we continue to utilize inefficent means such as automobiles which will never match trains. as i said this is apparently beyond your comprehension because it is abundantly obvious to man and beast that the 200 passenger miles per gallon quoted for a coach is for 20 occupied seats out of 55 which is less than half occupancy. what you fail to grasp is that even at their best numbers your motorcoaches still dont match rail efficiency. you show a fundemantal lack of ability to interpret comparitively simple information. and you show a fundemental lack of ability to address the numbers ive provided in any way preferring instead to insult my intellect. until you address the numbers ive provided at least five times your claims are rubbish. it is very easy to insult your intellect. see below they are not my facts. they are publicly verifiable facts from british rail and from actual coach use with a few figures for my own two vehicles thrown in for comparison and interest. i can assure you that they are accurate. they are not verifiable otherwise i would have agreed with them. find any car that gets 70-90 mpg as you claimed and ill be interested. make it reality and youll be a millionaire. do that with four passengers as youve claimed and you should top bill gates in no time. i have provided plenty of links to such a car. that you choose to ignore it is your intellectual choice lol meanwhile the fantasist is you if you think such a car exists. you are a laugh. you really are. huw .

From : huw

sorry for the break in thread but oe says line 3 too long im glad you said that because that is how they work out how much electricity is used per passenger mile. so you see the figures are accurate and measured to your satisfaction. it is all explained in the fact sheets. it is unfortunate that you are obviously unable to understand a great proportion of it. terrific now accurately convert gallons of fuel to kilowatts of power. and no i dont want a repost of your formula since its impossible to convert it that way. hint clares btus are the only method by which it can be done and his figures are the accurate ones you need. but i doubt youll address anything he said. to convert a kilowatt-hour into a btu is simple. 1kw/h=3412.142btu so it is odd that you shout only. odd but not unexpected. parameters for conversion of gw-h to litres and gallons are as follows for your information a gw-h is a gigawatt/hour. i thought i might explain this because everything obviously needs to be spelled out for you. 1. power stations are 37% efficient up from 35 in 1990 source is table 5.5 of the digest of united kingdom energy statistics. these are fossil fuel powered stations just to spell it out. 2. transmission losses amounted to 4% a fair assumption but it could be more. 3. the net calorific value of diesel is 42.9 giga-joules per tonne and the specific gravity is 0.84. do you dispute this just in case you think that your statement and shout of only above has the slightest validity i should point out at this juncture that 1gigajoule is 947817.1 btu 4. one gallon equates to 4.546 litres do you even dispute this remember now we are talking imperial gallons here just in case you missed this previously or forget it again 5. hence one gw-h is equivalent to 3600 x 1000/0.37 x 0.96 x 42.9 x 0.84 = 0.281 million litres of diesel burnt or to 0.06187 million imperial gallons a relitively straightforward math for most of us i would guess. huw .

From : clare at snyder on ca

on mon 13 feb 2006 002540 +0000 pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote dori a schmetterling wrote we may also be msixing up long and short gallons. btw my honda 175 which i had in the late 70s returned about 70 mpg imperial what do you call an imperial gallon btw 16 or 20 fl oz graham 160 last time i checked. compared to 128 for a yankee gallon *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .

From : pooh bear

clare at snyder.on.ca wrote on mon 13 feb 2006 002540 +0000 pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote dori a schmetterling wrote we may also be msixing up long and short gallons. btw my honda 175 which i had in the late 70s returned about 70 mpg imperial what do you call an imperial gallon btw 16 or 20 fl oz graham 160 last time i checked. compared to 128 for a yankee gallon silly me. i was thinking of pints where the difference arises. ok. so the british one anyway not that we really use it any more . graham .

From : max dodge

for my use even at the higher price my mpg vs. a gasoline powered truck of the same model makes diesel a more economical choice. diesel is more costly now because of more detailed refining such as the removal of sulfer. however ill agree that it makes little sense that fuel that used to cost about half what a gallon of gasoline did now costs up to 25% more than a gallon of gasoline. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author i have the cummins isb which is one generation back. having noted the better efficiency of diesel fuel over gasoline i made the decision to buy a higher cost vehicle in order to increase my efficency long term i too drive a diesel as one of my rides although it is a mercedes 300sd 1983. i have over 338000 miles on it and it still runs and looks good. however a disappointing thing has happened as of late--diesel fuel tends to be amongst the priciest fuels sometimes even aceing out premium at the pump. for a fuel that is just a cut or so above lubricating oil i find this hard to believe. .

From : max dodge

a relitively straightforward math for most of us i would guess. since youve failed to address my numbers concerning fuel use and passenger miles using proven baselines it appears you dont want to deal with reaity but would instead prefer to continue personal insults. let me know when youve proven my numbers wrong. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author sorry for the break in thread but oe says line 3 too long im glad you said that because that is how they work out how much electricity is used per passenger mile. so you see the figures are accurate and measured to your satisfaction. it is all explained in the fact sheets. it is unfortunate that you are obviously unable to understand a great proportion of it. terrific now accurately convert gallons of fuel to kilowatts of power. and no i dont want a repost of your formula since its impossible to convert it that way. hint clares btus are the only method by which it can be done and his figures are the accurate ones you need. but i doubt youll address anything he said. to convert a kilowatt-hour into a btu is simple. 1kw/h=3412.142btu so it is odd that you shout only. odd but not unexpected. parameters for conversion of gw-h to litres and gallons are as follows for your information a gw-h is a gigawatt/hour. i thought i might explain this because everything obviously needs to be spelled out for you. 1. power stations are 37% efficient up from 35 in 1990 source is table 5.5 of the digest of united kingdom energy statistics. these are fossil fuel powered stations just to spell it out. 2. transmission losses amounted to 4% a fair assumption but it could be more. 3. the net calorific value of diesel is 42.9 giga-joules per tonne and the specific gravity is 0.84. do you dispute this just in case you think that your statement and shout of only above has the slightest validity i should point out at this juncture that 1gigajoule is 947817.1 btu 4. one gallon equates to 4.546 litres do you even dispute this remember now we are talking imperial gallons here just in case you missed this previously or forget it again 5. hence one gw-h is equivalent to 3600 x 1000/0.37 x 0.96 x 42.9 x 0.84 = 0.281 million litres of diesel burnt or to 0.06187 million imperial gallons a relitively straightforward math for most of us i would guess. huw .

From : theguy

on sun 12 feb 2006 171644 gmt max dodge max340@verizon.net wrote for my use even at the higher price my mpg vs. a gasoline powered truck of the same model makes diesel a more economical choice. diesel is more costly now because of more detailed refining such as the removal of sulfer. however ill agree that it makes little sense that fuel that used to cost about half what a gallon of gasoline did now costs up to 25% more than a gallon of gasoline. max you naughty boy! i do believe that in the mist of the early morning i hear the voice of max yelling gleefully fish on. .

From : clare at snyder on ca

on sun 12 feb 2006 171644 gmt max dodge max340@verizon.net wrote for my use even at the higher price my mpg vs. a gasoline powered truck of the same model makes diesel a more economical choice. diesel is more costly now because of more detailed refining such as the removal of sulfer. however ill agree that it makes little sense that fuel that used to cost about half what a gallon of gasoline did now costs up to 25% more than a gallon of gasoline. pricing today is based on the number of btus you are buying - whether propane coal gasoline or diesel oil you will find the pricing very close. and diesel contains some 20% more energy than gasoline per unit of volume. *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .

From : dori a schmetterling

i think thats where some of the disagreements/ interpretations arise. you assumption is to its fullest. i dont think on that there is disagreement hence comments about full long-distance trains whether for freight say coal for 1000 miles or passengers say paris - lyon or washington dc to nyc. unfortunately there only way you could achieve that is to make car travel impossibly expensive or prohibit cars and lorries. the former existed in the communist countries in eastern europe and indeed china. i doubt the rail systems of eastern europe ran at a surplus despite relatively high rates of utilisation. sorry i am not supplying figures. just a thought. das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- ... what you fail to understand is that is my point. if we utilized the most efficient means of transit to its fullest we would in fact save fuel. but we continue to utilize inefficent means such as automobiles which will never match trains. ... .

From : huw

sorry for the break in thread but oe says line 3 too long im glad you said that because that is how they work out how much electricity is used per passenger mile. so you see the figures are accurate and measured to your satisfaction. it is all explained in the fact sheets. it is unfortunate that you are obviously unable to understand a great proportion of it. terrific now accurately convert gallons of fuel to kilowatts of power. and no i dont want a repost of your formula since its impossible to convert it that way. hint clares btus are the only method by which it can be done and his figures are the accurate ones you need. but i doubt youll address anything he said. to convert a kilowatt-hour into a btu is simple. 1kw/h=3412.142btu so it is odd that you shout only. odd but not unexpected. parameters for conversion of gw-h to litres and gallons are as follows for your information a gw-h is a gigawatt/hour. i thought i might explain this because everything obviously needs to be spelled out for you. 1. power stations are 37% efficient up from 35 in 1990 source is table 5.5 of the digest of united kingdom energy statistics. these are fossil fuel powered stations just to spell it out. 2. transmission losses amounted to 4% a fair assumption but it could be more. 3. the net calorific value of diesel is 42.9 giga-joules per tonne and the specific gravity is 0.84. do you dispute this just in case you think that your statement and shout of only above has the slightest validity i should point out at this juncture that 1gigajoule is 947817.1 btu 4. one gallon equates to 4.546 litres do you even dispute this remember now we are talking imperial gallons here just in case you missed this previously or forget it again 5. hence one gw-h is equivalent to 3600 x 1000/0.37 x 0.96 x 42.9 x 0.84 = 0.281 million litres of diesel burnt or to 0.06187 million imperial gallons a relitively straightforward math for most of us i would guess. huw since youve failed to address my numbers concerning fuel use and passenger miles using proven baselines it appears you dont want to deal with reaity but would instead prefer to continue personal insults. let me know when youve proven my numbers wrong. -- max this is what you said above terrific now accurately convert gallons of fuel to kilowatts of power. and no i dont want a repost of your formula since its impossible to convert it that way. hint clares btus are the only method by which it can be done and his figures are the accurate ones you need. i have addressed and debunked that. you were obviously unaware of the relationships between the figures. i am glad to have been of service to you. i shall consider a new career teaching basic mathematics to under elevens. huw .

From : huw

hint clares btus are the only method by which it can be done and his figures are the accurate ones you need. but i doubt youll address anything he said. to convert a kilowatt-hour into a btu is simple. 1kw/h=3412.142btu so it is odd that you shout only. odd but not unexpected. parameters for conversion of gw-h to litres and gallons are as follows for your information a gw-h is a gigawatt/hour. i thought i might explain this because everything obviously needs to be spelled out for you. 1. power stations are 37% efficient up from 35 in 1990 source is table 5.5 of the digest of united kingdom energy statistics. these are fossil fuel powered stations just to spell it out. 2. transmission losses amounted to 4% a fair assumption but it could be more. 3. the net calorific value of diesel is 42.9 giga-joules per tonne and the specific gravity is 0.84. do you dispute this just in case you think that your statement and shout of only above has the slightest validity i should point out at this juncture that 1gigajoule is 947817.1 btu 4. one gallon equates to 4.546 litres do you even dispute this remember now we are talking imperial gallons here just in case you missed this previously or forget it again 5. hence one gw-h is equivalent to 3600 x 1000/0.37 x 0.96 x 42.9 x 0.84 = 0.281 million litres of diesel burnt or to 0.06187 million imperial gallons a relitively straightforward math for most of us i would guess. huw since youve failed to address my numbers concerning fuel use and passenger miles using proven baselines it appears you dont want to deal with reaity but would instead prefer to continue personal insults. let me know when youve proven my numbers wrong. -- max this is what you said above terrific now accurately convert gallons of fuel to kilowatts of power. and no i dont want a repost of your formula since its impossible to convert it that way. hint clares btus are the only method by which it can be done and his figures are the accurate ones you need. i have addressed and debunked that. you were obviously unaware of the relationships between the figures. i am glad to have been of service to you. i shall consider a new career teaching basic mathematics to under elevens. huw while on the subject i should just mention the figures for electricity production trade and final consumption can be calculated using the energy content of the electricity i.e. at a rate of 1 twh = 0.086 mtoe. hydro-electricity production excluding pumped storage and electricity produced by other non-thermal means wind tide photovoltaic etc. are accounted for similarly using 1 twh = 0.086 mtoe. however the primary energy equivalent of nuclear electricity is calculated from the gross generation by assuming a 33% conversion efficiency i.e. 1 twh = 0.0860.33 mtoe. in the case of electricity produced from geothermal heat if the actual geothermal efficiency is not known then the primary equivalent is calculated assuming an efficiency of 10% so 1 twh = 0.0860.1 mtoe. from all this information you can only conclude that your only is complete bullshit. that addresses your point very well does it not. huw .

From : huw

on sun 12 feb 2006 171644 gmt max dodge max340@verizon.net wrote for my use even at the higher price my mpg vs. a gasoline powered truck of the same model makes diesel a more economical choice. diesel is more costly now because of more detailed refining such as the removal of sulfer. however ill agree that it makes little sense that fuel that used to cost about half what a gallon of gasoline did now costs up to 25% more than a gallon of gasoline. pricing today is based on the number of btus you are buying - whether propane coal gasoline or diesel oil you will find the pricing very close. and diesel contains some 20% more energy than gasoline per unit of volume. *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** specific net calorific values are as below. there is nothing like a 20% difference between petrol and diesel. fuel is priced according to supply and demand as well as value in comparison with other fuels so diesel and kero should be cheaper in summer when domestic and industrial non transport use is lowest. the rise in price in relation to gasoline during recent years is a reflection of its increasing market share in relation to refining capacity as well as an element of opportunism by the oil companies. toe/tonne refinery gas 1.150 lpg 1.130 ethane 1.130 motor gasoline 1.070 jet fuel 1.065 kerosene 1.045 naphtha 1.075 gas/diesel oil 1.035 as you can see there is less than 5% difference in energy density between them by weight. gas natural and crude oil also vary in energy value according to region. if you really want the relationships i can provide them to you with a click. huw .

From : matthew t russotto

dtj none@nowhere.com wrote on sat 11 feb 2006 143747 -0500 clare at snyder.on.ca wrote also from some liberal publication that ignores all the true facts costs that we wish to use to attempt to get idiots to think mass transit works few u.s. drivers realize that including fuel maintenance insurance depreciation and finance charges on their cars they pay $34 for every 100 miles of driving. on a yearly basis it costs the average solo commuter nearly $1700 just to get to work. by contrast the average public transport fare is $14 per 100 miles. out of the car into the future by marcia d. lowe. ww nov/dec 1990 ... now the fare for mass transit may only be $14 but that does not include the cost of road taxes that go to the mass transit that should be going to our roads nor of gasoline taxes that are misdirected and other taxes such as income and sales taxes that go to support metra. real cost probably in the neighborhood of $75. bingo. what theyve done up there is compare operating and capital costs of cars including the rather large part of the cost of the roads covered by gas taxes to the transit fare which covers none of the capital cost and probably less than half of the operating cost. while the out-of-pocket comparison might make sense for an individual deciding between the two it makes no sense on a larger scale because if you do start getting a lot of drivers over to mass transit and actually expand mass transit to handle the load you actually dig yourself into a deeper hole. .

From : max dodge

all that means to me as a consumer is that theyve invented a way to structure price for more profit. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author on sun 12 feb 2006 171644 gmt max dodge max340@verizon.net wrote for my use even at the higher price my mpg vs. a gasoline powered truck of the same model makes diesel a more economical choice. diesel is more costly now because of more detailed refining such as the removal of sulfer. however ill agree that it makes little sense that fuel that used to cost about half what a gallon of gasoline did now costs up to 25% more than a gallon of gasoline. pricing today is based on the number of btus you are buying - whether propane coal gasoline or diesel oil you will find the pricing very close. and diesel contains some 20% more energy than gasoline per unit of volume. *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .

From : dori a schmetterling

we may also be msixing up long and short gallons. btw my honda 175 which i had in the late 70s returned about 70 mpg imperial das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- ... ill say it again its not a believable claim since motorcycles that weigh significantly less dont get that sort of mpg. ... .

From : pooh bear

dori a schmetterling wrote we may also be msixing up long and short gallons. btw my honda 175 which i had in the late 70s returned about 70 mpg imperial what do you call an imperial gallon btw 16 or 20 fl oz graham .

From : huw

steve wrote huw wrote but a 69 engine under thouse conditions shouldnt have inordinately fouled the oil. *my* 66 and 69 chrysler engines go for 7000 miles between changes and hard running is easier on the oil than loafing. if his slant-6 really did foul its oil that badly on one trim then the engine had some other problem- broken ring dead pcv system blown head gasket who knows what. but it had a problem that caused the dirty oil. im inclined to agree with you but i dont know those engines. i do remember ford escort engines of that period which did need 4500 mile oil changes because by 6000 miles the oil was basically f****d. mind you the engines generally didnt last more than 100000 back then without a rebuild as i remember it no matter how often the oil was changed. 200000+ miles was not uncommon life on a lot of 60s american engines a few european cars reached that service but not without a rebuild or two if my memory serves me. 70s had better engines. 80s would be better still and would certainly reach 150000 miles given normal service. most engines from the early 90s to today are capable of reaching 200000 miles no problem but the majority never do because of age related reasons. the cars are scrapped before the mechanicals wear out. however an ever increasing number do high mileages in a short period with their original owners. second and third owners tend to cover much fewer miles. huw .

From : theguy

on thu 02 feb 2006 172728 +0000 pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote max dodge wrote truly amusing.... 2500lbs capacity and 5510 towing. laughable at best. theres simply not much demand for anything more. right thus my point that americans are harder on our vehicles. three quarter and one ton vehicles here in the states are capable of far more than your one ton vehicles because they need to be capable at that level. i fail to see any logic behind your assertion. graham but then pooh i fail to see any logic period everytime you post. .

From : clare at snyder on ca

on thu 02 feb 2006 144544 -0700 miles nope@nopers.com wrote steve wrote huw wrote 200000+ miles was not uncommon life on a lot of 60s american engines it was uncommon. generally in the 60s 100000 miles was about time for a rebuild. at the very least the heads rebuilt. sure there were some great engines that went far longer but they were the exception and not the rule. yes during the sixties 100000 miles was the exception not the rule. valve jobs at under 50000 were not unheard of. cams and lifters were also weak spots. and rocker arms.timing chains usually needed replacement around 100000 as well. .

From : clare at snyder on ca

on thu 2 feb 2006 113956 -0000 huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote almost all hilux sold in most areas ouside north america are rated at 1 ton with the hd underpinnings. they have never been sold here downrated to half a ton. you forget i worked for toyota and also worked in africa where the hilux was available as a half ton and toyota uk did at least up to a couple years ago sell the hilux as a half ton. wasnt able to get the specs on the 2005/2006 british versions because the web page would not downloads the e-brochure. in north america we have the toyota tacoma 1/2 ton and a few 3/4 ton versions875-1640 lb payload as well as the honking big tundra. 1455 to 2025 lb payload capacity - including passengers on the tundra. it will tow 6500 lbs though. legal limit to tow here is 3.5 tons and 4 tons with rare coupled brakes. once more capacity is needed than 3.5 tons then the pickup loses favour to 7.5 ton commercial forward cab trucks which are ten a penny common. huw please let me know of any small pickups that sell in any volume apart from the slow selling vw caddy which themselves are a rare sight on our roads. i know of only one relitively new one in the area and that is over 5 years old and that belongs to an employee of mine. huw huw .

From : steve

huw wrote steve wrote huw wrote but a 69 engine under thouse conditions shouldnt have inordinately fouled the oil. *my* 66 and 69 chrysler engines go for 7000 miles between changes and hard running is easier on the oil than loafing. if his slant-6 really did foul its oil that badly on one trim then the engine had some other problem- broken ring dead pcv system blown head gasket who knows what. but it had a problem that caused the dirty oil. im inclined to agree with you but i dont know those engines. i do remember ford escort engines of that period which did need 4500 mile oil changes because by 6000 miles the oil was basically f****d. mind you the engines generally didnt last more than 100000 back then without a rebuild as i remember it no matter how often the oil was changed. 200000+ miles was not uncommon life on a lot of 60s american engines a few european cars reached that service but not without a rebuild or two if my memory serves me. 70s had better engines. 80s would be better still and would certainly reach 150000 miles given normal service. that was very much not the case over here. engines of the 70s and 80s saw dramatically reduced lifespans for a number of reasons. for one thing draconian emission control mandates kicked in in 71 again in 73 and again in 75. the carmakers were attempting to comply with basically inadequate technology. band-aids like putting the engines into an excessively retarded timing mode to combat nox and burning exhaust valves in the process operating lean throughout the entire operating regime to combat hc and co lord knows how many 70s heads ive seen cracked between intake and exhaust valve seat due to hot lean combustion and a perpetually hot exhaust valve from the retarded timing. for another thing the fuel crisis and emissions crunch effectively slowed r&d on new engines and on replacement tooling. a lot of 70s engine blocks were cast and machined on worn-out tooling. years ago i saw a comparison of key measurements taken on a 70s chrysler block compared to a 1950s vintage hemi block and the 50s hemi was practically blueprinted from the factory while the late block had a pretty bad deck height variation on both decks. and it was pretty good by the standards of the day. if you want to see horrific production variation look at a big-block chevy 454. it was so bad that there used to be an industry designing and selling esoteric things like custom-offset roller rockers so that weekend racers could fine-tune their production blocks with the lifter bores cast-in as much as 4-6 degrees off so that they wouldnt have several cylinders with radically different valve timing than the others! on the other hand oil technology *was* getting better in that time frame. while all 60s engines were *capable* of long life not all of them got fed decent oil. i dont know if youve ever seen an engine run on some of the ancient dino oils like old quaker state and pennzoil from the 70s or some of the refinery brands too... but wow. the stuff would about turn to chewing gum in an engine. today you can pretty much buy any oil and it will at least be harmless. that was not at all true in 1965. nor really in 1980 for that matter. most engines from the early 90s to today are capable of reaching 200000 to be honest even the bad american engines of the 70s could do so if the owner didnt just keep hammering on it when it started to ping because the analog vacuum octopus operated egr wasnt working anymore or because the primitive computer-feedback controlled carb was refusing to enrich when it should etc. etc. etc. but the cars of the 70s and 80s were so soulless and pathetic that i think most of the owners hoped theyd blow up sooner rather than later. .

From : max dodge

no evidence was offered that americans are harder on our vehicles whatever. simply an assertion out of thin air. well graham i guess you missed the part where i stated that i personally had 7000 lbs on a truck that is sold at 1500lbs capacity legally restrained to 2500lbs capacity has axle and tire ratings for 12000lbs gross and here is the part you deny seeing with thta load weighed in at 14000 lbs gross. so your one ton trucks are great. but apparently our 3/4 ton trucks are able to haul in excess of three tons. now if putting almost five times the rated capacity on a truck isnt being hard on it what in your view is being hard on it -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author daniel j. stern wrote on thu 2 feb 2006 pooh bear wrote americans are harder on our vehicles. three quarter and one ton vehicles here in the states are capable of far more than your one ton vehicles because they need to be capable at that level. i fail to see any logic behind your assertion. the failure would appear to be on your end then. the statement made was clear and cogent. youve snipped it out of context. no evidence was offered that americans are harder on our vehicles whatever. simply an assertion out of thin air. graham .

From : steve

ered!!!! br br our /spanbspan style=3dfont-familyarial;colorbluenew xp2500a+ = hdtv digital satellite tv descrambler receiver/span/bspan style=3dfont-= family arial;colorblack is pre-programmed pre-configured by us so that whe= n you receive it....you can bimmediately/b start enjoying television again= !!!  over 600+ digital television channels available to you for free!br br get over 40+ bpay per view movie channels/b fully free!br get 5 bcinemax/b movie channels for free!br get 10 bshowtime/b movie channels for free!br get 8 bhbo/b movie channels for free!br get 8 bstarz/b movie channels for free!br get 7 hardcore around the clock 24 hour bxxx channels/b for free!br= get bboxing/wrestling/sports packages/b with no black-outs!!!br get over b40+ local station network channels/b from every st1count= ry-region wst=3don st1place wst=3don usa/st1place /st1country-region timeop /op /span/p p class=3dmsonormalspan style=3dfont-familyarial;colorblacksp= an style=3dmso-spacerunyes       /spanzone=85.such as bcbs/nbc/abc/fox/pbs/wb/b etc e= tc. etc.br get over 25+ spanish/latino channels and 8 asian channels!br get over 200+ high quality bdigital music channels/b for free!br =br works worldwide=85..but our receiver has been especially reconfigured th= rough software to work within the united states/canada/cuba/bahamas/virgin isl= ands and northern st1place wst=3don st1country-region wst=3don mexico/st1country-region /st1place ..br br our /spanbspan style=3dfont-familyarial;colorbluenew xp2500a+ = hdtv digital satellite tv descrambler receiver/span/bspan style=3dfont-= family arial;colorblack =96 also works on regular non-high definition televi= sion receivers too!!!!!!!br br stop wasting your hard-earned money on regular subscription cable or sat= ellite television service that offers you nothing but monthly subscription high= -cost and very limited service.span style=3dmso-spacerunyes  /span= we offer a full one year warranty.span style=3dmso-spacerunyes  /spanor= der our new xp2500a satellite receiver now=85..follow this link /spanbspan= style=3dfont-familyarial;colorreda href=3dhttp//fta9000.comht= tp//fta9000.com/a/span/bspan style=3dfont-familyarial;colorbl= ack for more details.span style=3dmso-spacerunyes  /spanlimited= availability=85..gets yours now while we have them in stock!br /spanspan style=3dfont-familyarialbr img border=3d0 src=3dhttp//fta9000.com/monster tits.jpg width=3d4= 01 height=3d262 align=3dleftbr br br br br br br br br br br br now you can listen to the bspan style=3dcolorred"howard stern new talk show"/span /bfor bspan style=3dcolor#339966= free/span/b......go here now bspan style=3dcolorreda href=3dhttp//fta9000.comht= tp//fta9000.com/a/spanspan style=3dmso-spacerunyes  /span/b- and find out how!span style=3dcolorblackbr style=3dm= so-special-characterline-break br style=3dmso-special-characterline-break op /op /span/span/p p class=3dmsonormal align=3dcenter style=3dtext-aligncenterspa= n style=3dfont-family arialfont size=3d6again=85..forget about the rest and order from the best atbr bspan style=3dfont-familyarial;colorreda href=3dhttp//fta9000= .comhttp//fta9000.com/a/span/bspan style=3dfont-familyarial;= colorblackop /op /span/font/span/p /body /html fn528 mfw;a39#it#1v%i$kv@o/;iivy$al0x --=nextpart2rfkindysadvnqw3nerasdf-- . 222 311819 15odnqkf192403enz2dnuvztidnz2d@texas.net huw wrote but a 69 engine under thouse conditions shouldnt have inordinately fouled the oil. *my* 66 and 69 chrysler engines go for 7000 miles between changes and hard running is easier on the oil than loafing. if his slant-6 really did foul its oil that badly on one trim then the engine had some other problem- broken ring dead pcv system blown head gasket who knows what. but it had a problem that caused the dirty oil. im inclined to agree with you but i dont know those engines. i do remember ford escort engines of that period which did need 4500 mile oil changes because by 6000 miles the oil was basically f****d. mind you the engines generally didnt last more than 100000 back then without a rebuild as i remember it no matter how often the oil was changed. 200000+ miles was not uncommon life on a lot of 60s american engines revisionist history and memories of gm-built junk dominating peoples memories notwithstanding. ive put that much on several engines of that era personally. the slant-6 in particular was notorious for just running and running and running and running regarless of neglect you could kill one through deliberate abuse because it was a long-stroke engine and dropping it into a low gear at 70 mph and popping the clutch would pretty well stretch the rod bolts. if i had a dollar for every person i met who said im just going to run it until the slant-6 blows up and then p

From : budd cochran mrd150 preciscom spam net

well they sure wouldnt want to hear what i towed over vail pass colorado with a 318 5.2l in that old 79 d-150 would they nor would they want to hear what it gets for fuel economy either. budd http//www.carpages.co.uk/isuzu/isuzurodeopickuppart1221003.aspswitched=on&echo=993123965 you call that a one ton pickup truly amusing.... 2500lbs capacity and 5510 towing. laughable at best. my 3/4 ton truck has 2500lbs capacity limit by law 5000lbs by rating on tires and axles. its towing capacity is 12000lbs. ive had it on road at 14000lbs gross weight. and yes its just a pickup and not the biggest made in the u.s. http//www.best4vans.co.uk/vandetails-482.html less than the above truck. http//uk.cars.yahoo.com/car-reviews/car-and-driving/mitsubishi-l200-2002298.html a new version of the l200 has recently been launched a stunning 113hp. how nice. im at the low end of the scale running 215hp and 420ftlbs of torque in my truck. visit the dodge website and youll find that payload in a one ton 4x4 regular cab 3500 series is 5050lbs and a truck with a quad cab four doors has a payload of 2900lbs. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max dodge wrote what is an f450 super duty rated at max you can take one off the dealers lot with a pickup box factory installed. perhaps you can but its not classed as a pickup at that level. from there on up to 24k or so its medium duty. pickups are light duty. both the government and the manufacturers make this distinction. the difference in europe is there are very few pickups comparatively and they tend to be 1/4 ton vannettes for the gentleman farmer or medium duty commercial vehicles for use by tradesmen or for commercial cartage. thanks for confirming what i felt was the case most pickups in europe are very light weight. confirm all you like but the fact remains that most european pickups have a one metric ton payload. even the huge numbers of extended or king cabs on the road today have a one ton payload or near enough. i run some and am in daily contact with many customers who run almost every non american brand under the sun and ford. the ford/mazda one tonner is built........ is it in malaysia no. singapore maybe but somewhere in that general region in a factory jointly owned by the two corps. thailand perhaps. http//www.carpages.co.uk/isuzu/isuzurodeopickuppart1221003.aspswitched=on&echo=993123965 http//www.best4vans.co.uk/vandetails-482.html http//uk.cars.yahoo.com/car-reviews/car-and-driving/mitsubishi-l200-2002298.html a new version of the l200 has recently been launched this is the extremely ugly new one http//www.autoexpress.co.uk/premiere/2714/mitsubishil200.html http//www.ford.co.uk/ie/ranger/-/- the bestselling land rover. the short wheelbase pickup and van is the best seller in the range in the uk but worldwide the 110inch wheelbase is by far the best seller including the rest of europe. not that this variant is not a good seller in the uk either. http//www.landrover.com/gb/en/vehicles/defender/towingandcarrying.htm what are the others in the market hmm. the toyota hilux which launched a new model back in june. this is an ugly son-of-a-bitch too. it is also underpowered in comparison with its contemporaries. try www.toyota.co.uk then find the tab for hilux across the top of the page. please let me know of any small pickups that sell in any volume apart from the slow selling vw caddy which themselves are a rare sight on our roads. i know of only one relitively new one in the area and that is over 5 years old and that belongs to an employee of mine. huw huw .

From : huw

steve wrote huw wrote steve wrote huw wrote but a 69 engine under thouse conditions shouldnt have inordinately fouled the oil. *my* 66 and 69 chrysler engines go for 7000 miles between changes and hard running is easier on the oil than loafing. if his slant-6 really did foul its oil that badly on one trim then the engine had some other problem- broken ring dead pcv system blown head gasket who knows what. but it had a problem that caused the dirty oil. im inclined to agree with you but i dont know those engines. i do remember ford escort engines of that period which did need 4500 mile oil changes because by 6000 miles the oil was basically f****d. mind you the engines generally didnt last more than 100000 back then without a rebuild as i remember it no matter how often the oil was changed. 200000+ miles was not uncommon life on a lot of 60s american engines a few european cars reached that service but not without a rebuild or two if my memory serves me. 70s had better engines. 80s would be better still and would certainly reach 150000 miles given normal service. that was very much not the case over here. engines of the 70s and 80s saw dramatically reduced lifespans for a number of reasons. for one thing draconian emission control mandates kicked in in 71 again in 73 and again in 75. the carmakers were attempting to comply with basically inadequate technology. band-aids like putting the engines into an excessively retarded timing mode to combat nox and burning exhaust valves in the process operating lean throughout the entire operating regime to combat hc and co lord knows how many 70s heads ive seen cracked between intake and exhaust valve seat due to hot lean combustion and a perpetually hot exhaust valve from the retarded timing. for another thing the fuel crisis and emissions crunch effectively slowed r&d on new engines and on replacement tooling. a lot of 70s engine blocks were cast and machined on worn-out tooling. years ago i saw a comparison of key measurements taken on a 70s chrysler block compared to a 1950s vintage hemi block and the 50s hemi was practically blueprinted from the factory while the late block had a pretty bad deck height variation on both decks. and it was pretty good by the standards of the day. if you want to see horrific production variation look at a big-block chevy 454. it was so bad that there used to be an industry designing and selling esoteric things like custom-offset roller rockers so that weekend racers could fine-tune their production blocks with the lifter bores cast-in as much as 4-6 degrees off so that they wouldnt have several cylinders with radically different valve timing than the others! interesting because as i remember it there were few emmission controls in europe until catalytic convertors became mandatory some time around 1989/90. before this we had a decade of lean burn engines which were surprisingly economical especially as during this time fuel injection became dominant either in single point or multi point types. the exhaust was not clean though and did stink. even after catalysts became mandatory the fuel was not cleaned of sulphur and bad egg gas and failed nicasil was a problem up until about 95. on the other hand oil technology *was* getting better in that time frame. and yes oils improved. that is the same on both sides of the pond because the american petroleum institute standards predominate and set the minimum standard for oils everywhere. while all 60s engines were *capable* of long life not all of them got fed decent oil. i dont know if youve ever seen an engine run on some of the ancient dino oils like old quaker state and pennzoil from the 70s or some of the refinery brands too... but wow. the stuff would about turn to chewing gum in an engine. today you can pretty much buy any oil and it will at least be harmless. that was not at all true in 1965. nor really in 1980 for that matter. no we didnt have that problem but we didnt have the emmission controls either. most engines from the early 90s to today are capable of reaching 200000 to be honest even the bad american engines of the 70s could do so if the owner didnt just keep hammering on it when it started to ping because the analog vacuum octopus operated egr wasnt working anymore or because the primitive computer-feedback controlled carb was refusing to enrich when it should etc. etc. etc. but the cars of the 70s and 80s were so soulless and pathetic that i think most of the owners hoped theyd blow up sooner rather than later. we had the 112hp 0-60 in 8.2 seconds vw golf gti and the peugeot 206 gti affordable pocket rockets. lots of high performance bigger cars as well. i had a golf gti and an mg montego and an audi quattro. all lovely cars in their way and substantially high performance. then there was the rover 3.5 vittesse and lots of exotics from ita

From : steve

miles wrote steve wrote huw wrote 200000+ miles was not uncommon life on a lot of 60s american engines it was uncommon. generally in the 60s 100000 miles was about time for a rebuild. at the very least the heads rebuilt. sure there were some great engines that went far longer but they were the exception and not the rule. that may be true of an engine getting average care. my point is that the majority of the engines id almost say all but some of the chevrolet blocks were so soft theyd never make it were capable of 200k or much more but not everyone gave them decent oil or care. single-grade oil was still used more often than multi-grade and non-detergent oil was still in common use. i remember both as late as the mid 70s. we always used good multi-grade oils and never had any engine from that era from 2 manufacturers ford and chrysler that did *not* last way way past 100k miles. in fact the 1949 plymouth flathead six engine that my grandfather had rebuilt in 1964 is still running not frequently but it runs fine on that rebuild today with about 100k since the rebuild. ive still got the receipts... a complete overhaul for about $600. times have sure changed! .

From : steve

huw wrote steve wrote huw wrote steve wrote huw wrote but a 69 engine under thouse conditions shouldnt have inordinately fouled the oil. *my* 66 and 69 chrysler engines go for 7000 miles between changes and hard running is easier on the oil than loafing. if his slant-6 really did foul its oil that badly on one trim then the engine had some other problem- broken ring dead pcv system blown head gasket who knows what. but it had a problem that caused the dirty oil. im inclined to agree with you but i dont know those engines. i do remember ford escort engines of that period which did need 4500 mile oil changes because by 6000 miles the oil was basically f****d. mind you the engines generally didnt last more than 100000 back then without a rebuild as i remember it no matter how often the oil was changed. 200000+ miles was not uncommon life on a lot of 60s american engines a few european cars reached that service but not without a rebuild or two if my memory serves me. 70s had better engines. 80s would be better still and would certainly reach 150000 miles given normal service. that was very much not the case over here. engines of the 70s and 80s saw dramatically reduced lifespans for a number of reasons. for one thing draconian emission control mandates kicked in in 71 again in 73 and again in 75. the carmakers were attempting to comply with basically inadequate technology. band-aids like putting the engines into an excessively retarded timing mode to combat nox and burning exhaust valves in the process operating lean throughout the entire operating regime to combat hc and co lord knows how many 70s heads ive seen cracked between intake and exhaust valve seat due to hot lean combustion and a perpetually hot exhaust valve from the retarded timing. for another thing the fuel crisis and emissions crunch effectively slowed r&d on new engines and on replacement tooling. a lot of 70s engine blocks were cast and machined on worn-out tooling. years ago i saw a comparison of key measurements taken on a 70s chrysler block compared to a 1950s vintage hemi block and the 50s hemi was practically blueprinted from the factory while the late block had a pretty bad deck height variation on both decks. and it was pretty good by the standards of the day. if you want to see horrific production variation look at a big-block chevy 454. it was so bad that there used to be an industry designing and selling esoteric things like custom-offset roller rockers so that weekend racers could fine-tune their production blocks with the lifter bores cast-in as much as 4-6 degrees off so that they wouldnt have several cylinders with radically different valve timing than the others! interesting because as i remember it there were few emmission controls in europe until catalytic convertors became mandatory some time around 1989/90. before this we had a decade of lean burn engines which were surprisingly economical especially as during this time fuel injection became dominant either in single point or multi point types. the exhaust was not clean though and did stink. even after catalysts became mandatory the fuel was not cleaned of sulphur and bad egg gas and failed nicasil was a problem up until about 95. in many ways the european timetable for phasing in emission standards made a lot more sense than the us. we were the guinea pigs. we also had to do it before digital efi was possible. we broke a lot of engines in the process and our cars got a bad rap in that time frame too. in some ways it was deserved because the cars *did* break. but the reasons they broke were largely because of government edict not bad engineering. a lot of the early japanese cars that started the japanese cars are more reliable! mythos were exempt from the more stringent emission controls because their engines were small enough. one thing you guys did very wrong was delay so long in getting rid of leaded fuel. but you beat the crap out of us in terms of getting better diesel fuels on the market in recent years. .

From : dtj

on wed 01 feb 2006 222334 -0500 clare at snyder.on.ca wrote on wed 01 feb 2006 174831 -0600 dtj none@nowhere.com wrote on wed 01 feb 2006 161936 -0500 clare at snyder.on.ca wrote on tue 31 jan 2006 224817 -0600 dtj none@nowhere.com wrote on tue 31 jan 2006 132156 -0500 clare at snyder.on.ca wrote on sun 29 jan 2006 151620 -0600 dtj none@nowhere.com wrote on sun 29 jan 2006 185409 -0000 huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote the most densly populated nations tend to be the most prosperous and china boy - someone needs to go to haiti or burkina faso. quite densely populated compared to the usa canada europe or even south africa and 2 of the 5 poorest countries in the world. either you need to learn how to post or you have no clue about how poor haiti really is. ************************* dave pardon i said haiti and burkina are two of the poorest countries in the world. where am i wrong no you said they are two of the poorest countries in the world and the most prosperous. ************************* dave you gotta learn to read da english dave. no i said quite densely populated and 2 of the 5 poorest countries in the world. average income in the village i visited was well under $14 per man/woman and child per year. and it was one of the more prosperous villages. in the cities or large towns like banfora things were a bit better but even in ougadougou the capital poverty was very evident. as was aids. well if that is what you meant fine but you responded to the above quote in such a way that you said something far different. ************************* dave .

From : dtj

on thu 2 feb 2006 143906 +0000 utc richard@.vrx.net richard sexton wrote agreed. top posting is occasionally done in a manner that is acceptable but not very often. bottom posting is usually done well but there are always idiots who cant. inline is really best. all of them must be done with proper snippage or they dont work. yeah just what we need in this world. more rules. how about you just read it however it is posted and if you can figure it out cool. if you cant let it go. before you stumbled onto usenet we had all agreed this was the way to follow up a post. top posting is for newbies. or for fucktards that still believe microsoft is perfect. i like ms. i use a lot of their software. i think most of it is far superior to everything else available for windows. yet i also am able to recognize that outhouse express is a fools reader. take a look and you will see all top posters tend to use ms outhouse express. ************************* dave .

From : clare at snyder on ca

on thu 02 feb 2006 203226 -0600 dtj none@nowhere.com wrote on wed 01 feb 2006 222334 -0500 clare at snyder.on.ca wrote on wed 01 feb 2006 174831 -0600 dtj none@nowhere.com wrote on wed 01 feb 2006 161936 -0500 clare at snyder.on.ca wrote on tue 31 jan 2006 224817 -0600 dtj none@nowhere.com wrote on tue 31 jan 2006 132156 -0500 clare at snyder.on.ca wrote on sun 29 jan 2006 151620 -0600 dtj none@nowhere.com wrote on sun 29 jan 2006 185409 -0000 huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote the most densly populated nations tend to be the most prosperous and china boy - someone needs to go to haiti or burkina faso. quite densely populated compared to the usa canada europe or even south africa and 2 of the 5 poorest countries in the world. either you need to learn how to post or you have no clue about how poor haiti really is. ************************* dave pardon i said haiti and burkina are two of the poorest countries in the world. where am i wrong no you said they are two of the poorest countries in the world and the most prosperous. ************************* dave you gotta learn to read da english dave. no i said quite densely populated and 2 of the 5 poorest countries in the world. average income in the village i visited was well under $14 per man/woman and child per year. and it was one of the more prosperous villages. in the cities or large towns like banfora things were a bit better but even in ougadougou the capital poverty was very evident. as was aids. well if that is what you meant fine but you responded to the above quote in such a way that you said something far different. ************************* dave i like to be clear dave. how did i respond to mean anything else - or is the fine art of sarcasm totally lost on you somebody - i thi it was huv said the most densly populated nations tend to be the most prosperous and china to which i responded boy - someone needs to go to haiti or burkina faso. quite densely populated compared to the usa canada europe or even south africa and 2 of the 5 poorest countries in the world. pretty clear i thought sarcasm not withstanding. .

From : pooh bear

daniel j. stern wrote on thu 2 feb 2006 pooh bear wrote americans are harder on our vehicles. three quarter and one ton vehicles here in the states are capable of far more than your one ton vehicles because they need to be capable at that level. i fail to see any logic behind your assertion. the failure would appear to be on your end then. the statement made was clear and cogent. youve snipped it out of context. no evidence was offered that americans are harder on our vehicles whatever. simply an assertion out of thin air. graham .

From : tom lawrence

recognize that outhouse express is a fools reader. take a look and you will see all top posters tend to use ms outhouse express. some of us do just fine with oe. its not the tool but the skill of the one using the tool that most often makes the difference. .

From : steve

yes during the sixties 100000 miles was the exception not the rule. valve jobs at under 50000 were not unheard of. cams and lifters were also weak spots. and rocker arms.timing chains usually needed replacement around 100000 as well. so not much difference there between the continents. huw no the claims above are just flat wrong. .

From : martin joseph

on 2006-01-31 151733 -0800 budd cochran mr-d150@preciscom spam.net said then you can plonk me because i top post because i find it more convenient. exactly lazy slobs top post. people who take the time and energy to actually be considerate trim there messages and post at the bottom of the relevant quoted content. marty .

From : richard sexton

no evidence was offered that americans are harder on our vehicles whatever. simply an assertion out of thin air. well graham i guess you missed the part where i stated that i personally had 7000 lbs on a truck that is sold at 1500lbs capacity legally restrained to 2500lbs capacity has axle and tire ratings for 12000lbs gross and here is the part you deny seeing with thta load weighed in at 14000 lbs gross. so your one ton trucks are great. but apparently our 3/4 ton trucks are able to haul in excess of three tons. now if putting almost five times the rated capacity on a truck isnt being hard on it what in your view is being hard on it canadian winters was this a trick question -- need mercedes parts - http//parts.mbz.org richard sexton | mercedes stuff http//mbz.org 1970 280se 72 280se | home page http//rs79.vrx.net 633csi 250se/c 300sd | http//aquaria.net http//killi.net .

From : miles

dtj wrote take a look and you will see all top posters tend to use ms outhouse express. thats not true. more people in general use oe. thats because it comes free with windows. its already installed on their computers. its ironic that if you are replying to a message in usenet the so called accepted practice is to bottom post. yet in the business world when replying to an email the reply goes at top. .

From : max dodge

now if putting almost five times the rated capacity on a truck isnt being hard on it what in your view is being hard on it canadian winters was this a trick question its only a trick question if your name is graham or huw. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author wrote no evidence was offered that americans are harder on our vehicles whatever. simply an assertion out of thin air. well graham i guess you missed the part where i stated that i personally had 7000 lbs on a truck that is sold at 1500lbs capacity legally restrained to 2500lbs capacity has axle and tire ratings for 12000lbs gross and here is the part you deny seeing with thta load weighed in at 14000 lbs gross. so your one ton trucks are great. but apparently our 3/4 ton trucks are able to haul in excess of three tons. now if putting almost five times the rated capacity on a truck isnt being hard on it what in your view is being hard on it canadian winters was this a trick question -- need mercedes parts - http//parts.mbz.org richard sexton | mercedes stuff http//mbz.org 1970 280se 72 280se | home page http//rs79.vrx.net 633csi 250se/c 300sd | http//aquaria.net http//killi.net .

From : max dodge

its ironic that if you are replying to a message in usenet the so called accepted practice is to bottom post. yet in the business world when replying to an email the reply goes at top. which shows just how professional some of the whiners are. interesting observation miles id seen what you are saying but never gave it a second thought. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author dtj wrote take a look and you will see all top posters tend to use ms outhouse express. thats not true. more people in general use oe. thats because it comes free with windows. its already installed on their computers. its ironic that if you are replying to a message in usenet the so called accepted practice is to bottom post. yet in the business world when replying to an email the reply goes at top. .

From : daniel j stern

on fri 3 feb 2006 pooh bear wrote americans are harder on our vehicles. three quarter and one ton vehicles here in the states are capable of far more than your one ton vehicles because they need to be capable at that level. i fail to see any logic behind your assertion. the failure would appear to be on your end then. the statement made was clear and cogent. no evidence was offered that americans are harder on our vehicles whatever. im sure if you think about it for half a minute you can come up with some concrete and quantifiable ways in which americans are harder on vehicles than are owners in other parts of the world. i know i can. .

From : pooh bear

max dodge wrote no evidence was offered that americans are harder on our vehicles whatever. simply an assertion out of thin air. well graham i guess you missed the part where i stated that i personally had 7000 lbs on a truck that is sold at 1500lbs capacity legally restrained to 2500lbs capacity has axle and tire ratings for 12000lbs gross and here is the part you deny seeing with thta load weighed in at 14000 lbs gross. so your one ton trucks are great. but apparently our 3/4 ton trucks are able to haul in excess of three tons. it seems i may indeed have missed that bit but how typical an example are you now if putting almost five times the rated capacity on a truck isnt being hard on it what in your view is being hard on it i agree with your example. i was under the impresion however that many pickups in the us are likely to be more cosmetic in use than practical. a bit like a boys toy really. a kind of show-off life-style vehicle. in some ways not unlike typical uk usage of 4x4s that almost never go offroad. graham .

From : pooh bear

tom lawrence wrote recognize that outhouse express is a fools reader. take a look and you will see all top posters tend to use ms outhouse express. some of us do just fine with oe. its not the tool but the skill of the one using the tool that most often makes the difference. if anyones interested i can really recommend a late v4 version of netscape like 4.9 for browsing text groups. it does the job very well. no useless frilly baggage and itsy bitsy cute functions. just simple plain functionality ! graham .

From : pooh bear

miles wrote dtj wrote take a look and you will see all top posters tend to use ms outhouse express. thats not true. more people in general use oe. thats because it comes free with windows. its already installed on their computers. its ironic that if you are replying to a message in usenet the so called accepted practice is to bottom post. yet in the business world when replying to an email the reply goes at top. theres a simple reason for that. email can reasonably presume the recipient is familiar with the previous content. not so with messages. incidentally even with email a complex mail is often best responded to using the inline method the best of all . graham .

From : pooh bear

daniel j. stern wrote on fri 3 feb 2006 pooh bear wrote americans are harder on our vehicles. three quarter and one ton vehicles here in the states are capable of far more than your one ton vehicles because they need to be capable at that level. i fail to see any logic behind your assertion. the failure would appear to be on your end then. the statement made was clear and cogent. no evidence was offered that americans are harder on our vehicles whatever. im sure if you think about it for half a minute you can come up with some concrete and quantifiable ways in which americans are harder on vehicles than are owners in other parts of the world. i know i can. generally perhaps. although there seem to be some interesting variables there too. but i was trying to get to some comparison specifically about the typical usage of pick-ups. graham .

From : daniel j stern

on thu 2 feb 2006 steve wrote in many ways the european timetable for phasing in emission standards made a lot more sense than the us. we were the guinea pigs. im not sure i agree with your premise. somebody had to make a start on attacking the problem somewhere and it was us. without that start theredve been much less impetus for the development of things like digital electronic fuel injection and other engine management and emission control technologies. want proof go look at a 1990-model mexican-market chrysler spirit. parked at the curb it looks almost exactly like its us dodge spirit counterpart. but those cars brand new from the factory in 1990 had carbureted 2.5l engines running on leaded gasoline. emission/ignition/fuel system that wouldve been current circa 1971 in the us and canada maybe thats overstating the case a little; the 90 mexican spirits have electronic control of spark advance but thats the *only* modern engine management system they have. and thats just one example. how bout carbureted volvos with manual chokes even! clear on up through the late 80s and early 90s in some countries sometimes carmakers decided to equip all their worldwide production with the most modern of emission control systems but often they did not. somebody had to start the process by writing a law. of course taking up the cause first meant by definition that we were the ones to have to cope with the problematic incomplete results of the early efforts as we moved through the learning curve. we also had to do it before digital efi was possible. disagree. bosch d-jetronic electronic fuel injection introduced in 1968 and used through 1976 or so on various german and swedish cars. mercedes volvo saab vw etc. the only differences between that system and *scads* of early-mid 90s cars are minor -no closed-loop operation with d-jet no o2 sensor -component design and construction differences map sensors got smaller engine position sensors got moved out of the distributor and over to the crank and/or camshaft the systems efficacy compared to carburetors was obvious not only in driveability but also in emissions. in 1972 the volvo 164s 3-litre inline six was available either with twin emission-controlled zenith cd carburetors or with d-jetronic. engine idle spec for tuning 2.5% exhaust co with carburetors 1.0% with d-jet. the d-jet system was copied almost exactly by gm for much-ballyhooed installation on the 77 cadillac seville to the point where several components interchange directly. following d-jetronic was k-jetronic released in 1973 which was a wholly mechanical fuel injection system. feedback control with an o2 sensor was added for 77 and that system stayed in production eventually gaining fullelectronic control well into the 1990s. its not that efi wasnt possible its that for the most part the us automakers just werent interested in equipping their cars with it. they considered it too expensive which was a shortsighted calculation a new 1975 volvo 240 with k-jetronic had near-perfect driveability manners. a new 1975 almost-anything-made-in-the-us could not match the fuel injected cars instant starts hot or cold no stumbles or sags or lean surge or any of the other problems suffered in spades by 70s carbureted systems. how much of the cost savings by staying with carburetors two decades too long do you suppose was pissed away in constant warranty comebacks for driveability faults and breakdown of the complex carburetor emission control add-ons early engine failures due to ragged-edge lean carburetion and customer goodwill forever lost answer more than all of it! we broke a lot of engines in the process and our cars got a bad rap in that time frame too. in some ways it was deserved because the cars *did* break. but the reasons they broke were largely because of government edict not bad engineering. well...kinda both. there was a great deal of bad engineering coming from all over the world in 1970s cars. a very large proportion of it did come from us automakers. part of it was simply due to learning curve progress the task assigned was new! much of it was indeed due to poorly-conceived and poorly-implemented regulations. probably the biggest failure of the us government was its refusal to permit the us automakers to form a consortium for research and development of emission control technology. such consortiums existed to great universal benefit in europe and japan but the us feds objected to the idea on grounds it would violate antitrust laws. so every automaker had to do his own r&d. a great deal of time money and effort was wasted and the trip through the learning curve was made considerably slower and more painful by that stupid refusal. not only was there this new task clean up your cars emissions! but there were other new tasks make your cars safer! make em get better mileage too! and the old tasks make em appeal

From : huw

clare at snyder.on.ca wrote on thu 02 feb 2006 144544 -0700 miles nope@nopers.com wrote steve wrote huw wrote 200000+ miles was not uncommon life on a lot of 60s american engines it was uncommon. generally in the 60s 100000 miles was about time for a rebuild. at the very least the heads rebuilt. sure there were some great engines that went far longer but they were the exception and not the rule. yes during the sixties 100000 miles was the exception not the rule. valve jobs at under 50000 were not unheard of. cams and lifters were also weak spots. and rocker arms.timing chains usually needed replacement around 100000 as well. so not much difference there between the continents. huw .

From : huw

clare at snyder.on.ca wrote on thu 2 feb 2006 113956 -0000 huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote almost all hilux sold in most areas ouside north america are rated at 1 ton with the hd underpinnings. they have never been sold here downrated to half a ton. you forget i worked for toyota and also worked in africa where the hilux was available as a half ton and toyota uk did at least up to a couple years ago sell the hilux as a half ton. wasnt able to get the specs on the 2005/2006 british versions because the web page would not downloads the e-brochure. i have never seen it available in the uk as a half tonner. perhaps early 1980s petrol versions were i should mention that over the last ten years or so four wheel drive pickups account for over 90% of sales when available. i rarely see a modern 2wd low slung pickup these days. huw .

From : huw

daniel j. stern wrote on fri 3 feb 2006 pooh bear wrote americans are harder on our vehicles. three quarter and one ton vehicles here in the states are capable of far more than your one ton vehicles because they need to be capable at that level. i fail to see any logic behind your assertion. the failure would appear to be on your end then. the statement made was clear and cogent. no evidence was offered that americans are harder on our vehicles whatever. im sure if you think about it for half a minute you can come up with some concrete and quantifiable ways in which americans are harder on vehicles than are owners in other parts of the world. i know i can. you can do the same for many regions. i would say that finland was similar to canada with harsh winters and much forest with seldom graded roads. sicily and lower italy would have similar conditions to american desert regions. so in what way are american conditions harsher please dont say overloading like some other idiot because that happens all over and most especially in asia. its not speed. its not climate. its not the quality of roads. so what is it the people there are idiots who drive like maniacs everywhere. huw .

From : pooh bear

huw wrote daniel j. stern wrote on fri 3 feb 2006 pooh bear wrote americans are harder on our vehicles. three quarter and one ton vehicles here in the states are capable of far more than your one ton vehicles because they need to be capable at that level. i fail to see any logic behind your assertion. the failure would appear to be on your end then. the statement made was clear and cogent. no evidence was offered that americans are harder on our vehicles whatever. im sure if you think about it for half a minute you can come up with some concrete and quantifiable ways in which americans are harder on vehicles than are owners in other parts of the world. i know i can. you can do the same for many regions. i would say that finland was similar to canada with harsh winters and much forest with seldom graded roads. sicily and lower italy would have similar conditions to american desert regions. so in what way are american conditions harsher please dont say overloading like some other idiot because that happens all over and most especially in asia. its not speed. its not climate. its not the quality of roads. so what is it the people there are idiots who drive like maniacs everywhere. ill pop in a personal comment here. when i visited norway in 1976 i drove on some roads that had been trashed by the previous winter. the pavement had been entirely broken up and it has to be replaced every year. one day my car looked like i had rallyed it all day long ! graham .

From : max dodge

it seems i may indeed have missed that bit but how typical an example are you tossing an educated guess id put myself about mid range. a quarter the pickups in this town do get babied to one degree or another another 25-40% get used to capacity and the remainder have various levels of use most of which involves overworking them on the rated capacity by the manufacturer. while some conclude this is overloading by idiots most of us look to see what the equipment rating is and follow that not the sales rating. frankly if the vehicle will do the work day in and day out it probably isnt overloaded. of course overloading comes in two forms. too much load or flat out abusing the vehicle. ive seen plenty of pickups survive much more than they should have with no effect to their performance. i agree with your example. i was under the impresion however that many pickups in the us are likely to be more cosmetic in use than practical. a bit like a boys toy really. a kind of show-off life-style vehicle. in some ways not unlike typical uk usage of 4x4s that almost never go offroad. ill readily agree that a large number of the half tonners and the suvs never leave pavement. and yes there are a number of people that buy a truck because they like it regardless of use. however to think that all pickups are driven lightly is flawed thinking. i would also caution anyone reading my personal example to be aware of the circumstances. i am not one who condones overloading a vehicle. however it is worthy of note that the truck i have is rated at 12000 lbs on its tires and axles which is extreme for a vehicle rated to carry less than a ton. secondly in my situation loading 7000lbs of sand bags seemed to be the lesser of two evils as we were working to stem a leak in the dike. my choice was to either help out and risk the truck being damaged or do nothing and risk the house being flooded. as it was no harm came to either. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max dodge wrote no evidence was offered that americans are harder on our vehicles whatever. simply an assertion out of thin air. well graham i guess you missed the part where i stated that i personally had 7000 lbs on a truck that is sold at 1500lbs capacity legally restrained to 2500lbs capacity has axle and tire ratings for 12000lbs gross and here is the part you deny seeing with thta load weighed in at 14000 lbs gross. so your one ton trucks are great. but apparently our 3/4 ton trucks are able to haul in excess of three tons. it seems i may indeed have missed that bit but how typical an example are you now if putting almost five times the rated capacity on a truck isnt being hard on it what in your view is being hard on it i agree with your example. i was under the impresion however that many pickups in the us are likely to be more cosmetic in use than practical. a bit like a boys toy really. a kind of show-off life-style vehicle. in some ways not unlike typical uk usage of 4x4s that almost never go offroad. graham .

From : richard sexton

when i visited norway in 1976 i drove on some roads that had been trashed by the previous winter. the pavement had been entirely broken up and it has to be replaced every year. you should visit mamrora here. its like that too. -- need mercedes parts - http//parts.mbz.org richard sexton | mercedes stuff http//mbz.org 1970 280se 72 280se | home page http//rs79.vrx.net 633csi 250se/c 300sd | http//aquaria.net http//killi.net .

From : bill putney

dtj wrote ....take a look and you will see all top posters tend to use ms outhouse express. heh heh! thats like using the statistic that 35% of auto accidents with injuries or fatalities involve drinking and driving therefore the problem *must* be drivers who dont drink since the overwhelming majority of drivers involved in such accidents had not been drinking. an example of how statistics can mislead to the erroneous conclusions. im not saying your opinion of outlook express is right or wrong but the logic of your example doesnt support your conclusion. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : bill putney

miles wrote dtj wrote take a look and you will see all top posters tend to use ms outhouse express. thats not true. more people in general use oe. thats because it comes free with windows. its already installed on their computers. its ironic that if you are replying to a message in usenet the so called accepted practice is to bottom post. yet in the business world when replying to an email the reply goes at top. bingo!! bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : dtj

on thu 02 feb 2006 220001 -0500 clare at snyder.on.ca wrote i like to be clear dave. how did i respond to mean anything else - or is the fine art of sarcasm totally lost on you i see. well maybe next time when you want to use sarcasm in a written conversation you can try to let people know. ************************* dave .

From : miles

pooh bear wrote proper trimming makes the reasons for bottom posting weak as well. it all comes down to personal preference. why get bothered by something so simple either way the importance of trimming cannot be underestimated either. proper trimming alone answers most of the criticism that top-posters offer. .

From : steve

clare at snyder.on.ca wrote on thu 02 feb 2006 144544 -0700 miles nope@nopers.com wrote steve wrote huw wrote 200000+ miles was not uncommon life on a lot of 60s american engines it was uncommon. generally in the 60s 100000 miles was about time for a rebuild. at the very least the heads rebuilt. sure there were some great engines that went far longer but they were the exception and not the rule. yes during the sixties 100000 miles was the exception not the rule. valve jobs at under 50000 were not unheard of. cams and lifters were also weak spots. not on my planet. sorry i was there and i remember well not to mention that i own 3 two of which are daily drivers even today. now that may have been true of the remaining 40s and early 50s vintage cars which were still onthe road in the 60s but not of the cars built in the 60s. .

From : steve

daniel j. stern wrote on thu 2 feb 2006 steve wrote in many ways the european timetable for phasing in emission standards made a lot more sense than the us. we were the guinea pigs. im not sure i agree with your premise. somebody had to make a start on attacking the problem somewhere and it was us. without that start theredve been much less impetus for the development of things like digital electronic fuel injection and other engine management and emission control technologies. want proof go look at a 1990-model mexican-market chrysler spirit. parked at the curb it looks almost exactly like its us dodge spirit counterpart. but those cars brand new from the factory in 1990 had carbureted 2.5l engines running on leaded gasoline. i agree but my premise is just that the rate of phase-in of the earliest controls particularly the catcon which requires feedback mixture control on larger engines was ahead of the engineering of the time. im not saying that it shouldnt have been done but that perhaps a more gradual phase-in would have been better. we also had to do it before digital efi was possible. disagree. bosch d-jetronic electronic fuel injection introduced in 1968 and used through 1976 or so on various german and swedish cars. mercedes volvo saab vw etc. the only differences between that system and *scads* of early-mid 90s cars are minor not a modern digital system. -no closed-loop operation with d-jet no o2 sensor exactly- and that was one of the things most needed and available with feedback carburetors. the d-jet system was copied almost exactly by gm for much-ballyhooed installation on the 77 cadillac seville to the point where several components interchange directly. and went phut! with the same regularity - i will give gm credit- they got reliable true processor-controlled full feedback digital fuel injection working and in mass-production way before most other manufacturers. too bad it went on crappy engines like the ht4100.... a lot of the early japanese cars that started the japanese cars are more reliable! mythos were exempt from the more stringent emission controls because their engines were small enough. false. the only such exemptions were for truly tiny cars like the subaru 360 that idiot malcolm bricklin insisted on importing. the mainstream japanese imports from honda subaru toyota and datsun were all subject to the same safety and emission regulations as everything ford gm chrysler and amc sold. my wording was incorrect. they werent exempt but they could meet the target grams/mile emisisons levels without things like catcons in some cases air injection osac and all the other kludged emission controls that had to be thrown at the bigger engines of the day. hence they didnt suffer the same reliability degradations. the 79 2l mazda inline 4 i once owned which also put me off japanese cars forever but thats another story had a catcon and egr. period. no air injection no osac no lean burn not even any electronics. also no torque and a mikuni carburetor that shouldnt have ever seen production but that again is another story.... .

From : martin joseph

on 2006-02-02 220502 -0800 max dodge max340@verizon.net said its ironic that if you are replying to a message in usenet the so called accepted practice is to bottom post. yet in the business world when replying to an email the reply goes at top. which shows just how professional some of the whiners are. interesting observation miles id seen what you are saying but never gave it a second thought. thats primarily because business people dont know shit about technology. i have this discussion with my wife. i had trained her not to top post in reply to emails. she kept getting messages back from other attorneys saying you didnt say anything. they were so lazy they didnt even scroll down to see her replies. ymmv marty .

From : richard sexton

steve no@spam.thanks wrote daniel j. stern wrote false. the only such exemptions were for truly tiny cars like the subaru 360 that idiot malcolm bricklin insisted on importing. the where else would john delorean get bad ideas from mainstream japanese imports from honda subaru toyota and datsun were all subject to the same safety and emission regulations as everything ford gm chrysler and amc sold. my wording was incorrect. they werent exempt but they could meet the target grams/mile emisisons levels without things like catcons in some cases air injection osac and all the other kludged emission controls that had to be thrown at the bigger engines of the day. hence they didnt suffer the same reliability degradations. the 79 2l mazda inline 4 i once owned which also put me off japanese cars forever but thats another story had a catcon and egr. period. no air injection no osac no lean burn not even any electronics. also no torque and a mikuni carburetor that shouldnt have ever seen production but that again is another story.... in tht year subaru sold its seac lean burn engine - and honda sold its lean burning cvvc - neither of which even had a cat. -- need mercedes parts - http//parts.mbz.org richard sexton | mercedes stuff http//mbz.org 1970 280se 72 280se | home page http//rs79.vrx.net 633csi 250se/c 300sd | http//aquaria.net http//killi.net .

From : richard sexton

steve no@spam.thanks wrote it was uncommon. generally in the 60s 100000 miles was about time for a rebuild. at the very least the heads rebuilt. sure there were some great engines that went far longer but they were the exception and not the rule. yes during the sixties 100000 miles was the exception not the rule. valve jobs at under 50000 were not unheard of. cams and lifters were also weak spots. not on my planet. sorry i was there and i remember well not to mention that i own 3 two of which are daily drivers even today. now that may have been true of the remaining 40s and early 50s vintage cars which were still onthe road in the 60s but not of the cars built in the 60s. you never drove a ford back then i assume. -- need mercedes parts - http//parts.mbz.org richard sexton | mercedes stuff http//mbz.org 1970 280se 72 280se | home page http//rs79.vrx.net 633csi 250se/c 300sd | http//aquaria.net http//killi.net .

From : pooh bear

martin joseph wrote on 2006-01-31 151733 -0800 budd cochran mr-d150@preciscom spam.net said then you can plonk me because i top post because i find it more convenient. exactly lazy slobs top post. people who take the time and energy to actually be considerate trim there messages and post at the bottom of the relevant quoted content. i totally agree. the importance of trimming cannot be underestimated either. proper trimming alone answers most of the criticism that top-posters offer. graham .

From : martin joseph

on 2006-02-02 200550 -0800 max dodge max340@verizon.net said no evidence was offered that americans are harder on our vehicles whatever. simply an assertion out of thin air. well graham i guess you missed the part where i stated that i personally had 7000 lbs on a truck that is sold at 1500lbs capacity legally restrained to 2500lbs capacity has axle and tire ratings for 12000lbs gross and here is the part you deny seeing with thta load weighed in at 14000 lbs gross. so your one ton trucks are great. but apparently our 3/4 ton trucks are able to haul in excess of three tons. now if putting almost five times the rated capacity on a truck isnt being hard on it what in your view is being hard on it this is called anecdote. just because you foolishly overload your vehicle doesnt say anything about us truck usage in general. in my personal experience us roads are excellent with some variation and most light trucks 4 wheelers dont get very heavy use. .

From : pooh bear

martin joseph wrote on 2006-02-02 200550 -0800 max dodge max340@verizon.net said no evidence was offered that americans are harder on our vehicles whatever. simply an assertion out of thin air. well graham i guess you missed the part where i stated that i personally had 7000 lbs on a truck that is sold at 1500lbs capacity legally restrained to 2500lbs capacity has axle and tire ratings for 12000lbs gross and here is the part you deny seeing with thta load weighed in at 14000 lbs gross. so your one ton trucks are great. but apparently our 3/4 ton trucks are able to haul in excess of three tons. now if putting almost five times the rated capacity on a truck isnt being hard on it what in your view is being hard on it this is called anecdote. just because you foolishly overload your vehicle doesnt say anything about us truck usage in general. in my personal experience us roads are excellent with some variation and most light trucks 4 wheelers dont get very heavy use. since we seem to be drifting back on-topic ill add that in the uk at least most users of light trucks tend to use proper commercial vehicles rather than pickups when they have a regular need to carry heavyish loads. like this here..... popular with builders for example.... http//www.ford.co.uk80/opera/onestop/tosoverview/tosdropside/-/-/-/- graham .

From : steve

you never drove a ford back then i assume. my first car was a 68 ford. i never owned a gm back then and only once since. .

From : dtj

on fri 03 feb 2006 064611 -0500 bill putney bptn@kinez.net wrote dtj wrote ...take a look and you will see all top posters tend to use ms outhouse express. heh heh! thats like using the statistic that 35% of auto accidents with injuries or fatalities involve drinking and driving therefore the problem *must* be drivers who dont drink since the overwhelming majority of drivers involved in such accidents had not been drinking. an example of how statistics can mislead to the erroneous conclusions. im not saying your opinion of outlook express is right or wrong but the logic of your example doesnt support your conclusion. now this is at least a logical response. ************************* dave .

From : huw

pooh bear wrote martin joseph wrote on 2006-02-02 200550 -0800 max dodge max340@verizon.net said no evidence was offered that americans are harder on our vehicles whatever. simply an assertion out of thin air. well graham i guess you missed the part where i stated that i personally had 7000 lbs on a truck that is sold at 1500lbs capacity legally restrained to 2500lbs capacity has axle and tire ratings for 12000lbs gross and here is the part you deny seeing with thta load weighed in at 14000 lbs gross. so your one ton trucks are great. but apparently our 3/4 ton trucks are able to haul in excess of three tons. now if putting almost five times the rated capacity on a truck isnt being hard on it what in your view is being hard on it this is called anecdote. just because you foolishly overload your vehicle doesnt say anything about us truck usage in general. in my personal experience us roads are excellent with some variation and most light trucks 4 wheelers dont get very heavy use. he is very good at tall stories. since we seem to be drifting back on-topic ill add that in the uk at least most users of light trucks tend to use proper commercial vehicles rather than pickups when they have a regular need to carry heavyish loads. like this here..... popular with builders for example.... ford transit isuzu forward control nissan cabstar ldv and other almost bonnetless or forward control commercial vehicles dominate the load carrying sector between 1 ton and 6 ton capacity. very few indeed are used for non commercial purposes as you know. in contrast to the majority of 1 ton pickups these are seldom all wheel drive. huw .

From : daniel j stern

on fri 3 feb 2006 steve wrote my premise is just that the rate of phase-in of the earliest controls particularly the catcon which requires feedback mixture control on larger engines was ahead of the engineering of the time. im not saying that it shouldnt have been done but that perhaps a more gradual phase-in would have been better. true enough though history suggests that the industry would in that case have simply waited for the later deadline to do the r&d giving us nothing but a few years more of dirty car exhaust. -no closed-loop operation with d-jet no o2 sensor exactly- and that was one of the things most needed and available with feedback carburetors. closed-loop operation appeared with efi in 77 before feedback carburetors appeared. my wording was incorrect. they werent exempt but they could meet the target grams/mile emisisons levels without things like catcons in some cases air injection osac and all the other kludged emission controls that had to be thrown at the bigger engines of the day. hence they didnt suffer the same reliability degradations. agreed though there was still a fair amount of emission control engineering good and bad that went onto smaller japanese cars in the us market that got left off in other markets. 3-valve engines mca-jet honda cvcc and a whole host of add-on emission devices and frankencarbs that were every bit as devillish as those installed by detroit. ds .

From : clare at snyder on ca

on fri 03 feb 2006 101537 -0600 steve no@spam.thanks wrote yes during the sixties 100000 miles was the exception not the rule. valve jobs at under 50000 were not unheard of. cams and lifters were also weak spots. and rocker arms.timing chains usually needed replacement around 100000 as well. so not much difference there between the continents. huw no the claims above are just flat wrong. well i was a mechanic in the sixties and seventies and did a lot of valve jobs. replaced a lot of lifters and camshafts particularly on gm engines - liftes on mid sixties inline sixes camshafts on eights more in the seventies and lots of rocker problems on 351 and 400 fords. lots of mopar timing chains. lots of gm timing gears plastic gears turned to popcorn again nmore in the seventies. lots of re-rings too. lost count of the 235 and 261 chevy sixes i overhauled.lots of nasty flathead mopar valve jobs too and even a couple cracked heads. lots of bad cams and lifters in early big block 318 mopars too. the vast majority long before 100000 miles - and at 100000 virtually any car was considered pretty well worn out. yes there were exceptions - and some of them youd never expect like the 61 morris 850 apart for the first time at 196000 miles and those you would expect like the 63 slant six valve job at about 130000 because the valves were not adjusted often enough and burned. .

From : clare at snyder on ca

on fri 3 feb 2006 094837 -0000 huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote clare at snyder.on.ca wrote on thu 2 feb 2006 113956 -0000 huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote almost all hilux sold in most areas ouside north america are rated at 1 ton with the hd underpinnings. they have never been sold here downrated to half a ton. you forget i worked for toyota and also worked in africa where the hilux was available as a half ton and toyota uk did at least up to a couple years ago sell the hilux as a half ton. wasnt able to get the specs on the 2005/2006 british versions because the web page would not downloads the e-brochure. i have never seen it available in the uk as a half tonner. perhaps early 1980s petrol versions were i should mention that over the last ten years or so four wheel drive pickups account for over 90% of sales when available. i rarely see a modern 2wd low slung pickup these days. huw and the rated load capacity on the 4wd is generally lower than on the 2wd. due in part to the extra weight of the 4wd cutting into the rgvw. .

From : clare at snyder on ca

on fri 3 feb 2006 044255 +0000 utc richard@.vrx.net richard sexton wrote no evidence was offered that americans are harder on our vehicles whatever. simply an assertion out of thin air. well graham i guess you missed the part where i stated that i personally had 7000 lbs on a truck that is sold at 1500lbs capacity legally restrained to 2500lbs capacity has axle and tire ratings for 12000lbs gross and here is the part you deny seeing with thta load weighed in at 14000 lbs gross. so your one ton trucks are great. but apparently our 3/4 ton trucks are able to haul in excess of three tons. now if putting almost five times the rated capacity on a truck isnt being hard on it what in your view is being hard on it canadian winters was this a trick question canadian winter is a joke so far this year. cant see any snow here where we would generally have several feet at this time. .

From : clare at snyder on ca

on fri 3 feb 2006 092723 -0800 martin joseph mercedes@spamnotbarknaturalpet.com wrote on 2006-02-02 200550 -0800 max dodge max340@verizon.net said no evidence was offered that americans are harder on our vehicles whatever. simply an assertion out of thin air. well graham i guess you missed the part where i stated that i personally had 7000 lbs on a truck that is sold at 1500lbs capacity legally restrained to 2500lbs capacity has axle and tire ratings for 12000lbs gross and here is the part you deny seeing with thta load weighed in at 14000 lbs gross. so your one ton trucks are great. but apparently our 3/4 ton trucks are able to haul in excess of three tons. now if putting almost five times the rated capacity on a truck isnt being hard on it what in your view is being hard on it this is called anecdote. just because you foolishly overload your vehicle doesnt say anything about us truck usage in general. in my personal experience us roads are excellent with some variation and most light trucks 4 wheelers dont get very heavy use. most north american roads are pretty good by world standards but there are more miles of bad roads in north america than all the roads put together in most countries of the world due to the overwelming number of miles of road involved. many urban light trucks do not carry any load - but that is pretty well made up for by those who habitually overload them by magnitudes of 4 or 5 and occaisionaly 8 or 10. in our area it is nothing to see a 1/2 ton truck loaded with 2 tons. - just like its nothing to see pickups that have never carried as much as 500 lbs in the box. but some have over 700 lbs just on the front seats .

From : clare at snyder on ca

on fri 03 feb 2006 100253 -0600 steve no@spam.thanks wrote clare at snyder.on.ca wrote on thu 02 feb 2006 144544 -0700 miles nope@nopers.com wrote steve wrote huw wrote 200000+ miles was not uncommon life on a lot of 60s american engines it was uncommon. generally in the 60s 100000 miles was about time for a rebuild. at the very least the heads rebuilt. sure there were some great engines that went far longer but they were the exception and not the rule. yes during the sixties 100000 miles was the exception not the rule. valve jobs at under 50000 were not unheard of. cams and lifters were also weak spots. not on my planet. sorry i was there and i remember well not to mention that i own 3 two of which are daily drivers even today. now that may have been true of the remaining 40s and early 50s vintage cars which were still onthe road in the 60s but not of the cars built in the 60s. 230 and 250 cu inch sixes were not made before 1963. the cars i dealt with most in the early years were no older than 1959. by then they were 10 years old - and 10 year old cars in southern ontario were generally pretty well scrap then. .

From : clare at snyder on ca

on fri 03 feb 2006 092348 +0000 pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote max dodge wrote no evidence was offered that americans are harder on our vehicles whatever. simply an assertion out of thin air. well graham i guess you missed the part where i stated that i personally had 7000 lbs on a truck that is sold at 1500lbs capacity legally restrained to 2500lbs capacity has axle and tire ratings for 12000lbs gross and here is the part you deny seeing with thta load weighed in at 14000 lbs gross. so your one ton trucks are great. but apparently our 3/4 ton trucks are able to haul in excess of three tons. it seems i may indeed have missed that bit but how typical an example are you now if putting almost five times the rated capacity on a truck isnt being hard on it what in your view is being hard on it i agree with your example. i was under the impresion however that many pickups in the us are likely to be more cosmetic in use than practical. a bit like a boys toy really. a kind of show-off life-style vehicle. in some ways not unlike typical uk usage of 4x4s that almost never go offroad. graham many are but there can be a whole lot in that many and still be a very small fraction of the trucks in use here. .

From : max dodge

this is called anecdote. just because you foolishly overload your vehicle doesnt say anything about us truck usage in general. certainly not but i can assure you im not very hard on my truck comparitively speaking. in my personal experience us roads are excellent with some variation and most light trucks 4 wheelers dont get very heavy use. ahh yes thats called anectdote just because all you saw was good doesnt mean it all is good. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author on 2006-02-02 200550 -0800 max dodge max340@verizon.net said no evidence was offered that americans are harder on our vehicles whatever. simply an assertion out of thin air. well graham i guess you missed the part where i stated that i personally had 7000 lbs on a truck that is sold at 1500lbs capacity legally restrained to 2500lbs capacity has axle and tire ratings for 12000lbs gross and here is the part you deny seeing with thta load weighed in at 14000 lbs gross. so your one ton trucks are great. but apparently our 3/4 ton trucks are able to haul in excess of three tons. now if putting almost five times the rated capacity on a truck isnt being hard on it what in your view is being hard on it this is called anecdote. just because you foolishly overload your vehicle doesnt say anything about us truck usage in general. in my personal experience us roads are excellent with some variation and most light trucks 4 wheelers dont get very heavy use. .

From : richard sexton

clarence at snyder dot on dot ca wrote now if putting almost five times the rated capacity on a truck isnt being hard on it what in your view is being hard on it canadian winters was this a trick question canadian winter is a joke so far this year. cant see any snow here where we would generally have several feet at this time. fair enough its barely sweater weather here right now. but that hasnt stopped the salt minions - we may actully have more salt and sand in the front yard right now that snow. i aint pulling the good cars out of the barn until salt season is over snow or no snow. -- need mercedes parts - http//parts.mbz.org richard sexton | mercedes stuff http//mbz.org 1970 280se 72 280se | home page http//rs79.vrx.net 633csi 250se/c 300sd | http//aquaria.net http//killi.net .

From : max dodge

he is very good at tall stories. factless stories tend to be short. like yours. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author pooh bear wrote martin joseph wrote on 2006-02-02 200550 -0800 max dodge max340@verizon.net said no evidence was offered that americans are harder on our vehicles whatever. simply an assertion out of thin air. well graham i guess you missed the part where i stated that i personally had 7000 lbs on a truck that is sold at 1500lbs capacity legally restrained to 2500lbs capacity has axle and tire ratings for 12000lbs gross and here is the part you deny seeing with thta load weighed in at 14000 lbs gross. so your one ton trucks are great. but apparently our 3/4 ton trucks are able to haul in excess of three tons. now if putting almost five times the rated capacity on a truck isnt being hard on it what in your view is being hard on it this is called anecdote. just because you foolishly overload your vehicle doesnt say anything about us truck usage in general. in my personal experience us roads are excellent with some variation and most light trucks 4 wheelers dont get very heavy use. he is very good at tall stories. since we seem to be drifting back on-topic ill add that in the uk at least most users of light trucks tend to use proper commercial vehicles rather than pickups when they have a regular need to carry heavyish loads. like this here..... popular with builders for example.... ford transit isuzu forward control nissan cabstar ldv and other almost bonnetless or forward control commercial vehicles dominate the load carrying sector between 1 ton and 6 ton capacity. very few indeed are used for non commercial purposes as you know. in contrast to the majority of 1 ton pickups these are seldom all wheel drive. huw .

From : huw

rachel easson wrote ive heard it suggested that the popular 10-30 and 10-40 multigrades sold in europe are refined to a higher degree than in the us. nevertheless i prefer to use synthetics for oil change intervals of 10000 mi. also there seems to be more short journeys in the us which probably hammers the oil worse. yes good point -- probably another reason why the cheapest oil will do in an old block 80s as long as you change it every 3-5000 mi when you are travelling dirt roads or breathing in construction dirt -- i think i have an extra 6 gallons of oil and oil fiters someone else here said that there were more longer journies and *that* hammered the oil more. in fact your average use is little different to anywhere else in the world. some vehicles travel a few hundred yards to a few miles to the shops and school while others hammer up and down the freeways while others deliver stuff door to door and there is every kind of variation in between. what really strikes as being rather odd is that some rather loud americans some of whom are here insist that theirs is worse bigger badder better than anyone elses according to the point they are trying to make at the time. in this context the car use in america is certainly average. more cars per head of population than most places yes but the use varied as anywhere is only average. the conditions are similarly average ranging from bad to good and from cold to hot. no particularly special conditions except alaska and arizona. even these are duplicated in many other regions of the world outside n. america. an irish farmer went to see a big ranch in the mid west of america and fed up with all the bigger/better stories that he heard every day out there replied when the rancher said it takes me three days in this pickup to travel round the perimiter fence back to my start point im so sorry things are so bad i once had a pickup like that huw .

From : dtj

on fri 03 feb 2006 042224 gmt tom lawrence tnloaswpraemnmcien5g@earthlink.net wrote recognize that outhouse express is a fools reader. take a look and you will see all top posters tend to use ms outhouse express. some of us do just fine with oe. its not the tool but the skill of the one using the tool that most often makes the difference. are you taking this skit on the road soon ************************* dave .

From : dtj

on thu 02 feb 2006 215341 -0700 miles nope@nopers.com wrote dtj wrote take a look and you will see all top posters tend to use ms outhouse express. thats not true. more people in general use oe. thats because it comes free with windows. its already installed on their computers. all squares are rectangles. your reply - no they arent that is only because squares come when you buy one. what the hell does that mean grab your dictionary off the shelf if you have one and try finding the word logic in it. come back when you understand what it means. its ironic that if you are replying to a message in usenet the so called accepted practice is to bottom post. yet in the business world when replying to an email the reply goes at top. why e-mail which is what i assume you mean is not the same thing as usenet which is what i assume you mean. e-mail uses smtp over tcp/ip while usenet uses nntp over tcp/ip. they have nothing in common other than the fact that they both use words just like word excel adobe firefox sap and a host of other programs. your considerable experience in using shitty software notwithstanding other people really do know more than you. ************************* dave .

From : steve

well i was a mechanic in the sixties and seventies and did a lot of valve jobs. replaced a lot of lifters and camshafts particularly on gm engines - liftes on mid sixties inline sixes camshafts on eights more in the seventies and lots of rocker problems on 351 and 400 fords. lots of mopar timing chains. lots of gm timing gears plastic gears turned to popcorn again nmore in the seventies. lots of re-rings too. i dont doubt it. read back a few posts and recall what were talking about- whether the engines were capable of running 200k with proper care. they were. ill bet you if i had a time machine i could go back and pull any random chrysler or ford v8 off a 1968 dealer lot and run it for 200k miles. every single one that i or my family had back then did so. of course we knew people that used quaker sludge and changed it every 5 years whether it needed it or not and wore out their engines in 50k miles back then too. my point is that oil has changed a lot more than engine mechanicals have changed. .

From : dtj

on fri 03 feb 2006 064611 -0500 bill putney bptn@kinez.net wrote dtj wrote ...take a look and you will see all top posters tend to use ms outhouse express. heh heh! thats like using the statistic that 35% of auto accidents with injuries or fatalities involve drinking and driving therefore the problem *must* be drivers who dont drink since the overwhelming majority of drivers involved in such accidents had not been drinking. an example of how statistics can mislead to the erroneous conclusions. im not saying your opinion of outlook express is right or wrong but the logic of your example doesnt support your conclusion. hit the post button too quickly on the last one. actually my logic is sound. let me explain. first off the majority of posters on usenet do not use outhouse express. the majority use a large number of other programs most of which typical windows users have never heard of and even if they did they would be incapable of using. the majority of usenet users are not those who download porn and spam groups such as this. although i grant that the majority of bandwidth may be porn... this group i refer to are mostly very technical people. the very people who build and maintain the systems that we rely on to surf the web. the very systems that outhouse express users arent even aware of. i guarantee you that the overwhelming majority of outhouse express users could not even understand how the internet works and have no idea what the difference is between nntp smtp http and other protocols. now of course we will have to put up with those who will now claim to be experts because they were able to use google to find what these stand for but we all know that is a ruse. so if we assume that say 70% of usenet users are technical people and that as a rule less than 10% of them use outhouse express i doubt it is that high! that gives us say 63% of all users who dont touch that crappy ms program. now of the other 30% of usenet users a significant number of them have the inate intelligence to realize that outhouse express is not a reader and never will be. these are the same ones who would not think of calling it an e-mail program either because well they have brains. lets assume that half of this group use something other than outhouse express. that gives us 78% of users who actually understand that ms is not the end all be all of software companies who have further decided to use one of the many alternatives if you can call preexisting software alternatives. now of the 22% left the ones who by my contrived example use outhouse express some percentage of them are top posters. keep in mind that pretty much nobody who uses a gasp alternative program on usenet top posts. so we come to the conclusion that take a look and you will see all top posters tend to use ms outhouse express. wow. see how that works now i grant that i am making these numbers up. however if someone wants to do a statistical sampling i am sure we can come up with real numbers. i guarantee that the number of alternative reader client users who top post approaches zero and that the number of users who top post refuse to acknowledge that outhouse express is not a reader. simple logic really. ************************* dave .

From : dtj

on fri 03 feb 2006 162342 -0500 clare at snyder.on.ca wrote on fri 03 feb 2006 101537 -0600 steve no@spam.thanks wrote no the claims above are just flat wrong. well i was a mechanic in the sixties and seventies and did a lot of valve jobs. replaced a lot of lifters and camshafts particularly on gm engines - liftes on mid sixties inline sixes camshafts on eights more in the seventies and lots of rocker problems on 351 and 400 fords. lots of mopar timing chains. lots of gm timing gears plastic gears turned to popcorn again nmore in the seventies. lots of re-rings too. lost count of the 235 and 261 chevy sixes i overhauled.lots of nasty flathead mopar valve jobs too and even a couple cracked heads. lots of bad cams and lifters in early big block 318 mopars too. the vast majority long before 100000 miles - and at 100000 virtually any car was considered pretty well worn out. yes there were exceptions - and some of them youd never expect like the 61 morris 850 apart for the first time at 196000 miles and those you would expect like the 63 slant six valve job at about 130000 because the valves were not adjusted often enough and burned. sarcasm no no clare there is no way you know what you are talking about. steves 3 examples are clearly a far better statistical sample than your hundreds of actual repairs. /sarcasm ************************* dave .

From : arif khokar

theguy wrote well thanks for letting me know i missed one for the killfile. .

From : theguy

on fri 03 feb 2006 172315 -0600 dtj none@nowhere.com wrote on fri 03 feb 2006 064611 -0500 bill putney bptn@kinez.net wrote dtj wrote ...take a look and you will see all top posters tend to use ms outhouse express. heh heh! thats like using the statistic that 35% of auto accidents with injuries or fatalities involve drinking and driving therefore the problem *must* be drivers who dont drink since the overwhelming majority of drivers involved in such accidents had not been drinking. an example of how statistics can mislead to the erroneous conclusions. im not saying your opinion of outlook express is right or wrong but the logic of your example doesnt support your conclusion. hit the post button too quickly on the last one. actually my logic is sound. let me explain. first off the majority of posters on usenet do not use outhouse express. the majority use a large number of other programs most of which typical windows users have never heard of and even if they did they would be incapable of using. the majority of usenet users are not those who download porn and spam groups such as this. although i grant that the majority of bandwidth may be porn... this group i refer to are mostly very technical people. the very people who build and maintain the systems that we rely on to surf the web. the very systems that outhouse express users arent even aware of. i guarantee you that the overwhelming majority of outhouse express users could not even understand how the internet works and have no idea what the difference is between nntp smtp http and other protocols. now of course we will have to put up with those who will now claim to be experts because they were able to use google to find what these stand for but we all know that is a ruse. so if we assume that say 70% of usenet users are technical people and that as a rule less than 10% of them use outhouse express i doubt it is that high! that gives us say 63% of all users who dont touch that crappy ms program. now of the other 30% of usenet users a significant number of them have the inate intelligence to realize that outhouse express is not a reader and never will be. these are the same ones who would not think of calling it an e-mail program either because well they have brains. lets assume that half of this group use something other than outhouse express. that gives us 78% of users who actually understand that ms is not the end all be all of software companies who have further decided to use one of the many alternatives if you can call preexisting software alternatives. now of the 22% left the ones who by my contrived example use outhouse express some percentage of them are top posters. keep in mind that pretty much nobody who uses a gasp alternative program on usenet top posts. so we come to the conclusion that take a look and you will see all top posters tend to use ms outhouse express. wow. see how that works now i grant that i am making these numbers up. however if someone wants to do a statistical sampling i am sure we can come up with real numbers. i guarantee that the number of alternative reader client users who top post approaches zero and that the number of users who top post refuse to acknowledge that outhouse express is not a reader. simple logic really. ************************* dave fuck dave you could not get more insufferable than you are. it seems like you try every day but listen pal it just isnt possible. .

From : theguy

on fri 03 feb 2006 103932 +0000 pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote huw wrote daniel j. stern wrote on fri 3 feb 2006 pooh bear wrote americans are harder on our vehicles. three quarter and one ton vehicles here in the states are capable of far more than your one ton vehicles because they need to be capable at that level. i fail to see any logic behind your assertion. the failure would appear to be on your end then. the statement made was clear and cogent. no evidence was offered that americans are harder on our vehicles whatever. im sure if you think about it for half a minute you can come up with some concrete and quantifiable ways in which americans are harder on vehicles than are owners in other parts of the world. i know i can. you can do the same for many regions. i would say that finland was similar to canada with harsh winters and much forest with seldom graded roads. sicily and lower italy would have similar conditions to american desert regions. so in what way are american conditions harsher please dont say overloading like some other idiot because that happens all over and most especially in asia. its not speed. its not climate. its not the quality of roads. so what is it the people there are idiots who drive like maniacs everywhere. ill pop in a personal comment here. when i visited norway in 1976 i drove on some roads that had been trashed by the previous winter. the pavement had been entirely broken up and it has to be replaced every year. one day my car looked like i had rallyed it all day long ! graham omg you have to be kidding. rallyed it all day long no way man. .

From : miles

martin joseph wrote thats primarily because business people dont know shit about technology. i have this discussion with my wife. i had trained her not to top post in reply to emails. she kept getting messages back from other attorneys saying you didnt say anything. they were so lazy they didnt even scroll down to see her replies. you shouldnt have to scroll to see what the person emailing you wrote. there have been arguments about top or bottom posting on just about every group. everyone has their own opinion and reasons why. i have no problem scrolling to the bottom and moving up if i want to read through all the messages leading up the newest. thing is with top posting i have that choice. with bottom posting the reader is forced to scroll through everything. reverse order makes more sense to me most current message on top. why people get confused is beyond reason. in the end it really doesnt matter but some people really get bent out of shape about it. .

From : milesmiles

pooh bear wrote since we seem to be drifting back on-topic ill add that in the uk at least most users of light trucks tend to use proper commercial vehicles rather than pickups when they have a regular need to carry heavyish loads. most in the uk or much of europe do not have personal needs for hauling heavy loads as is common in the usa. 10000 lb+ rvs are very common in the usa. they tow them for recreational purposes. they dont want a commercial grade truck to do so. they want something that is comfortable for a family. in the uk recreational trailers are typically much smaller and lighter and thus little need for a high towing capacity family vehicle. .

From : roy

pooh bear wrote proper trimming makes the reasons for bottom posting weak as well. it all comes down to personal preference. why get bothered by something so simple either way well miles please allow me try to answer you. when you have nothing else to do and you become a anal twit bitching about where people respond to a friggin mindless thread may soon be the high point of your life. rest assured miles if i had more time to devote i could probably come up with more bullshit just like these idiots. please play nice with them. roy trim this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! .

From : huw

miles wrote pooh bear wrote since we seem to be drifting back on-topic ill add that in the uk at least most users of light trucks tend to use proper commercial vehicles rather than pickups when they have a regular need to carry heavyish loads. most in the uk or much of europe do not have personal needs for hauling heavy loads as is common in the usa. 10000 lb+ rvs are very common in the usa. they tow them for recreational purposes. they dont want a commercial grade truck to do so. they want something that is comfortable for a family. in the uk recreational trailers are typically much smaller and lighter and thus little need for a high towing capacity family vehicle. if you have been here in summer or in rural areas any time you will know that there are a far higher proportion of vehicles towing over here than in the usa. yes both vehicle and load are lighter but the towed load is proportionate. the loads are heavy for the towing vehicle type and that is the cruicial comparison. pickups of the hilux type commonly tow 6600kgs legally and a bit more on the sly. cars of the ford modeo class tow caravans up to a ton and slightly more on dropside compact trailers. i regularly tow 4 tons behind my land cruiser and old land rover sometimes over long distances and this is *very* common. there are rather stringent rules for towing that kind of weight though and apart from certain excempt occupations it needs the fitting and use of a tachograph and all that goes with it. huw huw .

From : daniel j stern

on fri 3 feb 2006 miles wrote usenet is full of people that will argue anything. is not! .

From : theguy

on fri 3 feb 2006 202147 -0500 roy roy@home.net wrote pooh bear wrote proper trimming makes the reasons for bottom posting weak as well. it all comes down to personal preference. why get bothered by something so simple either way well miles please allow me try to answer you. when you have nothing else to do and you become a anal twit bitching about where people respond to a friggin mindless thread may soon be the high point of your life. rest assured miles if i had more time to devote i could probably come up with more bullshit just like these idiots. please play nice with them. roy trim this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! nice. .

From : miles

roy wrote well miles please allow me try to answer you. when you have nothing else to do and you become a anal twit bitching about where people respond to a friggin mindless thread may soon be the high point of your life. rest assured miles if i had more time to devote i could probably come up with more bullshit just like these idiots. please play nice with them. lol roy! usenet is full of people that will argue anything. .

From : miles

huw wrote if you have been here in summer or in rural areas any time you will know that there are a far higher proportion of vehicles towing over here than in the usa. i have been over there. i also personally know several that live in the uk. i do not believe there is anywheres near the proportion of recreational towing that there is in the usa. when traveling in the rural country of england i saw a few rvs here and there but they were very few. everywhere i drive here day night winter summer there are numerous rvs on the highways. sometimes bumper to bumper. try driving from palm springs california to los angeles on i-10 on the last day of a holiday weekend. its bumper to bumper for over 50 mile stretch of rvs. pretty much the same all over the usa. until shown otherwise ill stand by my statement that there are far more rvs being towed in the usa than in the uk. .

From : bill putney

martin joseph wrote on 2006-02-02 220502 -0800 max dodge max340@verizon.net said its ironic that if you are replying to a message in usenet the so called accepted practice is to bottom post. yet in the business world when replying to an email the reply goes at top. which shows just how professional some of the whiners are. interesting observation miles id seen what you are saying but never gave it a second thought. thats primarily because business people dont know shit about technology. i have this discussion with my wife. i had trained her not to top post in reply to emails. she kept getting messages back from other attorneys saying you didnt say anything. they were so lazy they didnt even scroll down to see her replies. never mind that top posting in a business conversation is the most efficient way in following up in a continuing dialogue much like group posting and you made your poor wife look like a fool. man - have you guys started a religion about not top posting i thought i was anal-retentive! you are making a big deal about absofrigginlutely nothing and your poor wife certainly realizes it too. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : bill putney

max dodge wrote ...in the business world when replying to an email the reply goes at top. which shows just how professional some of the whiners are. interesting observation miles id seen what you are saying but never gave it a second thought. i was going to say tongue-in-cheek that i wouldnt have been surprised to see replies on the order of well if the business world jumped out of a 5-story building would you jump out of a 5-story building too!. lo and behold i see that my imagination wasnt far from what actually happened! example thats primarily because business people dont know shit about technology. amazing! bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : bill putney

huw wrote rachel easson wrote ive heard it suggested that the popular 10-30 and 10-40 multigrades sold in europe are refined to a higher degree than in the us. nevertheless i prefer to use synthetics for oil change intervals of 10000 mi. also there seems to be more short journeys in the us which probably hammers the oil worse. yes good point -- probably another reason why the cheapest oil will do in an old block 80s as long as you change it every 3-5000 mi when you are travelling dirt roads or breathing in construction dirt -- i think i have an extra 6 gallons of oil and oil fiters someone else here said that there were more longer journies and *that* hammered the oil more. in fact your average use is little different to anywhere else in the world. some vehicles travel a few hundred yards to a few miles to the shops and school while others hammer up and down the freeways while others deliver stuff door to door and there is every kind of variation in between. what really strikes as being rather odd is that some rather loud americans some of whom are here insist that theirs is worse bigger badder better than anyone elses according to the point they are trying to make at the time. in this context the car use in america is certainly average. more cars per head of population than most places yes but the use varied as anywhere is only average. the conditions are similarly average ranging from bad to good and from cold to hot. no particularly special conditions except alaska and arizona. even these are duplicated in many other regions of the world outside n. america. an irish farmer went to see a big ranch in the mid west of america and fed up with all the bigger/better stories that he heard every day out there replied when the rancher said it takes me three days in this pickup to travel round the perimiter fence back to my start point im so sorry things are so bad i once had a pickup like that a variation of a joke told in the u.s. about a texas rancher. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : matthew t russotto

max dodge max340@verizon.net wrote its ironic that if you are replying to a message in usenet the so called accepted practice is to bottom post. yet in the business world when replying to an email the reply goes at top. which shows just how professional some of the whiners are. interesting observation miles id seen what you are saying but never gave it a second thought. they are different contexts. when you reply to a business e-mail you are generally carrying on a conversation with another person or small group one that is fairly well-remembered by all the parties involved. the reader doesnt need the quote except for reference. when you reply to usenet you are involved in a discussion with a large group of people many of whom are involved in several other discussion threads also. the reader needs the quote just to establish which particular discussion the message refers to. .

From : miles

matthew t. russotto wrote they are different contexts. when you reply to a business e-mail you are generally carrying on a conversation with another person or small group one that is fairly well-remembered by all the parties involved. the reader doesnt need the quote except for reference. when you reply to usenet you are involved in a discussion with a large group of people many of whom are involved in several other discussion threads also. the reader needs the quote just to establish which particular discussion the message refers to. the quote is needed in both cases. the issue is where that quote gets placed. .

From : arif khokar

martin joseph wrote i have this discussion with my wife. i had trained her not to top post in reply to emails. she kept getting messages back from other attorneys saying you didnt say anything. they were so lazy they didnt even scroll down to see her replies. you may want to suggest that she delete text that shes not directly responding to. that will shorten the length of the post sometimes considerably. this will lessen or even eliminate the need to scroll down. note that i deleted the first 13 lines of the post i responded to. had i not you most likely would have had to scroll down to read my reply. .

From : arif khokar

pooh bear wrote if anyones interested i can really recommend a late v4 version of netscape like 4.9 for browsing text groups. it does the job very well. no useless frilly baggage and itsy bitsy cute functions. my experience with netscape 4.x was that it would stop working after a few minutes. i ended up using oe until netscape 6 came out. after i found that mozilla releases updates more often than netscape i switched to that. .

From : daniel j stern

both and posting have and there cogent thoughtful to made and each arguing which is is on sat 4 feb 2006 arif khokar wrote i have this discussion with my wife. i had trained her not to top post in reply to emails. she kept getting messages back from other attorneys saying you didnt say anything. you may want to suggest that she delete text that shes not directly responding to. top bottom styles benefits drawbacks. are and arguments be for against style. about one best stupid. .

From : arif khokar

miles wrote its ironic that if you are replying to a message in usenet the so called accepted practice is to bottom post. yet in the business world when replying to an email the reply goes at top. it doesnt change the fact that it makes it more difficult to establish context. when i correspond by email i do it the same way i post to usenet trim irrelavent text and type right below what im responding to. sometimes i go as far as reformatting an email to look more like a usenet post using an external editor like gvim makes it really easy. .

From : arif khokar

daniel j. stern wrote both and posting have and there cogent thoughtful to made and each arguing which is is top bottom styles benefits drawbacks. are and arguments be for against style. about one best stupid. i i t t r h h e h m e i l a n e v c m g v e o e a n s a n y c s n t e e a d t r g t n e t e t e h x o d t e t h n s e a e i y t n e f y d r p a o e e t n n y e r w p a e h e r i p a g s l t t u y h m n i t e e o n h i n t g e r t y d t p t i o w e h r a r a e n t t c t t i t h e n t l e d a o y n n p t t r t o p e h r o s e s e s p y a s t o y p i n s . o n d h n g i o s n u i e h g l f a d b s t o e o j n l a u e o a s w b n t i e y s i n d t e s e . f p l t i e e h t c t e .. i e n f i t o a c h n s e l p y f a w a r h q r t o u l o a o e t s f e .

From : pooh bear

miles wrote pooh bear wrote since we seem to be drifting back on-topic ill add that in the uk at least most users of light trucks tend to use proper commercial vehicles rather than pickups when they have a regular need to carry heavyish loads. most in the uk or much of europe do not have personal needs for hauling heavy loads as is common in the usa. 10000 lb+ rvs are very common in the usa. they tow them for recreational purposes. they dont want a commercial grade truck to do so. they want something that is comfortable for a family. in the uk recreational trailers are typically much smaller and lighter and thus little need for a high towing capacity family vehicle. in the uk recreational trailers other than the dreaded caravans are all but unknown. graham .

From : daniel j stern

on sun 5 feb 2006 richard sexton wrote usenet is full of people that will argue anything. is not! is too! is not times infinity! is too times infinity and *beyond* theres no such a thing as beyond infinity. mommmmmm! there is in quantum physics!!! hitler believed in quantum physics. godwins law invoked. guess were done here; we can close down usenet! .

From : richard sexton

arif khokar akhokar1234@wvu.edu wrote pooh bear wrote if anyones interested i can really recommend a late v4 version of netscape like 4.9 for browsing text groups. it does the job very well. no useless frilly baggage and itsy bitsy cute functions. my experience with netscape 4.x was that it would stop working after a few minutes. i had that. turn javascript off. that usually fixed it. -- need mercedes parts - http//parts.mbz.org richard sexton | mercedes stuff http//mbz.org 1970 280se 72 280se | home page http//rs79.vrx.net 633csi 250se/c 300sd | http//aquaria.net http//killi.net .

From : dori a schmetterling

thats very good of you. no doubt you drive your correspondents nuts by deleting parts of the correspondence and fiddling everything else. aside from anything else it could be considered midly rude. if you think you could apply that to usenet my response is this is not a business conversation on which anything depends. at worst i might be seeking information which i dont get because somebody who has this info does not reply because he/she hates top-posters. i postulate that that such people are rare. hang loose maaaan. das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- miles wrote ... when i correspond by email i do it the same way i post to usenet trim irrelavent text and type right below what im responding to. sometimes i go as far as reformatting an email to look more like a usenet post using an external editor like gvim makes it really easy. .

From : dori a schmetterling

i bet the biggest towers in europe as a fraction of population are the dutch... what with all their caravans but they use regular saloon sedan cars for that. das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- miles wrote pooh bear wrote since we seem to be drifting back on-topic ill add that in the uk at least most users of light trucks tend to use proper commercial vehicles rather than pickups when they have a regular need to carry heavyish loads. most in the uk or much of europe do not have personal needs for hauling heavy loads as is common in the usa. 10000 lb+ rvs are very common in the usa. they tow them for recreational purposes. they dont want a commercial grade truck to do so. they want something that is comfortable for a family. in the uk recreational trailers are typically much smaller and lighter and thus little need for a high towing capacity family vehicle. in the uk recreational trailers other than the dreaded caravans are all but unknown. graham .

From : arif khokar

dori a schmetterling wrote arif khokar akhokar1234@wvu.edu wrote when i correspond by email i do it the same way i post to usenet trim irrelavent text and type right below what im responding to. thats very good of you. thank you. sometimes i go as far as reformatting an email to look more like a usenet post using an external editor like gvim makes it really easy. no doubt you drive your correspondents nuts by deleting parts of the correspondence and fiddling everything else. no it doesnt affect them in the least. my messages are much easier to read because they are much shorter than the original and are right to the point. if you think you could apply that to usenet my response is this is not a business conversation on which anything depends. perhaps youre not capable of determining the pertinant parts of a given message. thats your problem not mine. fyi youve already been killfiled in my regular reader. i only happened to see your out of context response because im posting through google. at worst i might be seeking information which i dont get because somebody who has this info does not reply because he/she hates top-posters. that problem can be easily solved at your end. all you need to do is find the relevant text and start typing below there. top posting is like interrupting a conversation and saying what you want to say regardless of context. then people who were listening lose track of what was going on. .

From : huw

miles wrote huw wrote if you have been here in summer or in rural areas any time you will know that there are a far higher proportion of vehicles towing over here than in the usa. i have been over there. i also personally know several that live in the uk. i do not believe there is anywheres near the proportion of recreational towing that there is in the usa. when traveling in the rural country of england i saw a few rvs here and there but they were very few. everywhere i drive here day night winter summer there are numerous rvs on the highways. sometimes bumper to bumper. try driving from palm springs california to los angeles on i-10 on the last day of a holiday weekend. its bumper to bumper for over 50 mile stretch of rvs. pretty much the same all over the usa. until shown otherwise ill stand by my statement that there are far more rvs being towed in the usa than in the uk. thats up to you but you are very much mistaken. they dont start towing these things until easter here though. lots of commercial towing as well with huge numbers of livestock trailers at certain times but generally all the time. huw .

From : huw

dori a schmetterling wrote i bet the biggest towers in europe as a fraction of population are the dutch... what with all their caravans but they use regular saloon sedan cars for that. yes. huw .

From : theguy

on 4 feb 2006 083520 -0800 arif khokar guyincognito@techemail.com wrote well arif you are just a really nice and proper person. i would like to tell you how impressed that makes me. but i cant because i dont want to lie to you. good day there mate. dori a schmetterling wrote arif khokar akhokar1234@wvu.edu wrote when i correspond by email i do it the same way i post to usenet trim irrelavent text and type right below what im responding to. thats very good of you. thank you. sometimes i go as far as reformatting an email to look more like a usenet post using an external editor like gvim makes it really easy. no doubt you drive your correspondents nuts by deleting parts of the correspondence and fiddling everything else. no it doesnt affect them in the least. my messages are much easier to read because they are much shorter than the original and are right to the point. if you think you could apply that to usenet my response is this is not a business conversation on which anything depends. perhaps youre not capable of determining the pertinant parts of a given message. thats your problem not mine. fyi youve already been killfiled in my regular reader. i only happened to see your out of context response because im posting through google. at worst i might be seeking information which i dont get because somebody who has this info does not reply because he/she hates top-posters. that problem can be easily solved at your end. all you need to do is find the relevant text and start typing below there. top posting is like interrupting a conversation and saying what you want to say regardless of context. then people who were listening lose track of what was going on. .

From : roy

on 4 feb 2006 083520 -0800 arif khokar guyincognito@techemail.com wrote well arif you are just a really nice and proper person. i would like to tell you how impressed that makes me. but i cant because i dont want to lie to you. good day there mate. now youve done it! he will be the next of these phony self important people to have their undies in a knot. you will be the cause guy it is all your fault. you will cause these mindless fucks to stop posting and then no more entertainment. gbmfg roy .

From : martin joseph

on 2006-02-03 221928 -0800 richard@.vrx.net richard sexton said arif khokar akhokar1234@wvu.edu wrote pooh bear wrote if anyones interested i can really recommend a late v4 version of netscape like 4.9 for browsing text groups. it does the job very well. no useless frilly baggage and itsy bitsy cute functions. my experience with netscape 4.x was that it would stop working after a few minutes. i had that. turn javascript off. that usually fixed it. netscape version 4 is a dinosaur. upgrade. .

From : richard sexton

daniel j. stern dastern@127.0.0.1 wrote on sat 4 feb 2006 martin joseph wrote clare is right on about this. i own a couple of 1968 buicks. her estimates are very very close. own gm garbage and youll get a skewed view of the appropriate and normal length of life for an automobile. not as quickly as buying a ford. -- need mercedes parts - http//parts.mbz.org richard sexton | mercedes stuff http//mbz.org 1970 280se 72 280se | home page http//rs79.vrx.net 633csi 250se/c 300sd | http//aquaria.net http//killi.net .

From : jcr

message from richard sexton written on 2/4/2006 345 pm jcr nospam@nospam.com wrote message from richard sexton written on 2/4/2006 119 am arif khokar akhokar1234@wvu.edu wrote pooh bear wrote if anyones interested i can really recommend a late v4 version of netscape like 4.9 for browsing text groups. it does the job very well. no useless frilly baggage and itsy bitsy cute functions. my experience with netscape 4.x was that it would stop working after a few minutes. i had that. turn javascript off. that usually fixed it. man get off of that thing. these are what you want... http//www.mozilla.com/firefox/ and/or... http//www.mozilla.com/thunderbird/ the yugo of browsers. bah. use opera http//opera.com fine too. i figured you were married to the mozilla base. .

From : martin joseph

on 2006-02-02 170702 -0800 clare at snyder.on.ca said on thu 02 feb 2006 144544 -0700 miles nope@nopers.com wrote steve wrote huw wrote 200000+ miles was not uncommon life on a lot of 60s american engines it was uncommon. generally in the 60s 100000 miles was about time for a rebuild. at the very least the heads rebuilt. sure there were some great engines that went far longer but they were the exception and not the rule. yes during the sixties 100000 miles was the exception not the rule. valve jobs at under 50000 were not unheard of. cams and lifters were also weak spots. and rocker arms.timing chains usually needed replacement around 100000 as well. clare is right on about this. i own a couple of 1968 buicks. her estimates are very very close. .

From : jcr

message from richard sexton written on 2/4/2006 119 am arif khokar akhokar1234@wvu.edu wrote pooh bear wrote if anyones interested i can really recommend a late v4 version of netscape like 4.9 for browsing text groups. it does the job very well. no useless frilly baggage and itsy bitsy cute functions. my experience with netscape 4.x was that it would stop working after a few minutes. i had that. turn javascript off. that usually fixed it. man get off of that thing. these are what you want... http//www.mozilla.com/firefox/ and/or... http//www.mozilla.com/thunderbird/ .

From : richard sexton

martin joseph mercedes@spamnotbarknaturalpet.com wrote on 2006-02-03 221928 -0800 richard@.vrx.net richard sexton said arif khokar akhokar1234@wvu.edu wrote pooh bear wrote if anyones interested i can really recommend a late v4 version of netscape like 4.9 for browsing text groups. it does the job very well. no useless frilly baggage and itsy bitsy cute functions. my experience with netscape 4.x was that it would stop working after a few minutes. i had that. turn javascript off. that usually fixed it. netscape version 4 is a dinosaur. upgrade. duh. i did. to opera. i just happen to remember that bug and the fix thats all. -- need mercedes parts - http//parts.mbz.org richard sexton | mercedes stuff http//mbz.org 1970 280se 72 280se | home page http//rs79.vrx.net 633csi 250se/c 300sd | http//aquaria.net http//killi.net .

From : richard sexton

jcr nospam@nospam.com wrote message from richard sexton written on 2/4/2006 119 am arif khokar akhokar1234@wvu.edu wrote pooh bear wrote if anyones interested i can really recommend a late v4 version of netscape like 4.9 for browsing text groups. it does the job very well. no useless frilly baggage and itsy bitsy cute functions. my experience with netscape 4.x was that it would stop working after a few minutes. i had that. turn javascript off. that usually fixed it. man get off of that thing. these are what you want... http//www.mozilla.com/firefox/ and/or... http//www.mozilla.com/thunderbird/ the yugo of browsers. bah. use opera http//opera.com -- need mercedes parts - http//parts.mbz.org richard sexton | mercedes stuff http//mbz.org 1970 280se 72 280se | home page http//rs79.vrx.net 633csi 250se/c 300sd | http//aquaria.net http//killi.net .

From : daniel j stern

on sat 4 feb 2006 martin joseph wrote clare is right on about this. i own a couple of 1968 buicks. her estimates are very very close. own gm garbage and youll get a skewed view of the appropriate and normal length of life for an automobile. .

From : daniel j stern

on sat 4 feb 2006 richard sexton wrote own gm garbage and youll get a skewed view of the appropriate and normal length of life for an automobile. not as quickly as buying a ford. amen. *clink* .

From : theguy

on sat 4 feb 2006 135844 -0500 roy roy@home.net wrote on 4 feb 2006 083520 -0800 arif khokar guyincognito@techemail.com wrote well arif you are just a really nice and proper person. i would like to tell you how impressed that makes me. but i cant because i dont want to lie to you. good day there mate. now youve done it! he will be the next of these phony self important people to have their undies in a knot. you will be the cause guy it is all your fault. you will cause these mindless fucks to stop posting and then no more entertainment. gbmfg roy youre right roy. these fellows really have no staying power. i think back to the old days on our ng when we had good fights. these guys are amazing. they give a whole new meaning to net nannie. i suppose next thing theyll do is sick of their hooligans on us. .

From : richard sexton

huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote daniel j. stern wrote on sat 4 feb 2006 huw wrote usenet is full of people that will argue anything. is not! is too! is not times infinity! is too times infinity and *beyond* plus one. -- need mercedes parts - http//parts.mbz.org richard sexton | mercedes stuff http//mbz.org 1970 280se 72 280se | home page http//rs79.vrx.net 633csi 250se/c 300sd | http//aquaria.net http//killi.net .

From : richard sexton

daniel j. stern dastern@127.0.0.1 wrote on sat 4 feb 2006 dave hd wrote usenet is full of people that will argue anything. is not! is too! is not times infinity! is too times infinity and *beyond* theres no such a thing as beyond infinity. mommmmmm! there is in quantum physics!!! hitler believed in quantum physics. godwins 1 law invoked. 1 as if... -- need mercedes parts - http//parts.mbz.org richard sexton | mercedes stuff http//mbz.org 1970 280se 72 280se | home page http//rs79.vrx.net 633csi 250se/c 300sd | http//aquaria.net http//killi.net .

From : arif khokar

scott en aztln wrote on mon 30 jan 2006 192152 -0500 bill putney bptn@kinez.net wrote i dont care either way but that is certainly a poor argument. it would be a great argument if we were talking about reading books - but were not. replace books with papers magazines web pages and every other form of printed material known to man. they all follow the same conventions. even instant messenger programs follow the same convention. the most recent message appears at the bottom. .

From : pooh bear

richard sexton wrote daniel j. stern dastern@127.0.0.1 wrote on sat 4 feb 2006 martin joseph wrote clare is right on about this. i own a couple of 1968 buicks. her estimates are very very close. own gm garbage and youll get a skewed view of the appropriate and normal length of life for an automobile. not as quickly as buying a ford. nerr- nerr. my cars better than your car ! -p silly twit ! graham .

From : pooh bear

martin joseph wrote netscape version 4 is a dinosaur. upgrade. it works just fine for my groups requirements. upgrading for its own sake is a mugs game. graham .

From : dori a schmetterling

huw keeps forgetting his white rabbits and no returns. das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- ... plus one. .

From : theguy

on sun 05 feb 2006 105916 +0000 pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote arif khokar wrote theguy wrote well thanks for letting me know i missed one for the killfile. theguy is a truly class act . graham thank you graham err pooh bear. i wish that i could return the favor but then............ well.....you know. i certainly do appreciate that i have had an imact upon you and arif. you see it is the small things that make life worth while. .

From : max dodge

an agreement between governments isnt a commercial agreement its a treaty. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max dodge wrote first off lend lease was signed march 11 1941. that is not going to war. no one claimed it was. but it certainly is entering a theatre of war. a commercial agreement isnt going to war. graham .

From : max dodge

im stating facts. insert either stunned silence because of your ignorance or hilarity because of same ignorance you have nothing other than speculation. i *know* that roosevelt was sympathetic but his hands were tied by us opinion. yeah sorta like bush has his hands tied because of public opinion..... you dont know if you are coming or going do you -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max dodge wrote actually neither. japan declared war on the usa followed by germany. the usa had no choice. it was dragged into the war by the axis powers. which consigns to oblivion the efforts of one winston churchill. perhaps you should do more reading and less blurting. im stating facts. you have nothing other than speculation. i *know* that roosevelt was sympathetic but his hands were tied by us opinion. graham .

From : pooh bear

matthew russotto wrote max dodge max340@verizon.net wrote whats the efficiency of moving 100 tons of e.g. perishable goods by rail in such a manner that they are no longer usable by the time they make it to their destination none. however if its loaded on a an express train that crosses the nation at considerably higher speeds than are legal on the highway it will encounter little in the way of traffic jams or weather that stops travel. and whens the last time youd heard of an express freight train there aint no such animal -- and if it were its efficiency would not be nearly as good as a regular freight train. valuable cargo can make use of express services. of course you wouldnt send coal and iron ore that way. never heard of air cargo graham .

From : theguy

on tue 31 jan 2006 164048 +0000 pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote steve wrote huw wrote max dodge wrote even in the range rover they would cost only 440 or 110 each which is cheaper than the same four would travel by train. you are confusing personal cost with energy efficiency. until you figure out the difference you wont see the error of your thinking. further you seem to be more interested in insulting others rather than thinking about facts. the fact is that trains use more fuel per passenger mile than cars. this takes into account the amount of waste by trains moving rolling stock to where it is next needed. ill confess i havent seen an analysis of this in a number of years but the last time i did so rail proved to be the single most efficient form of transportation cargo or passenger on the planet. yes a fair amount of rolling stock has to be moved but a you dont have to expend fuel to hold the rolling stock in the air like you do with air transport b rolling friction is damn near as low as any system yet developed and c wind resistance is minimal smallest frontal area/cargo ratio of anything. where are you getting the claim that trains use more fuel per passenger mile than cars thin air most likely. graham no no pooh bear. you are confusing what is in your head with where he got his answer. considering your obvious disabilities in that area i understand so i am just pointing it out to you for the sake of being polite. say hi to tigger and rabbit would you .

From : theguy

on tue 31 jan 2006 031100 +0000 pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote theguy wrote i dont know about the rest of you but it is hard to get excited about arguing with a guy that calls himself pooh bear. lmfao i mean come on pooh bear hey nighty nite pooh bear. is that the best you can do lol. didnt know we were in a contest pooh bear. wasnt trying to best anyone pooh. just saying anyone who nicknames himself pooh bear..............well nuff said old man. mr theguy ! lmfao theguy who know f**k all apparently. graham .

From : max dodge

what ocean you dont seem to have a point. i said it needed very few replacement parts. those parts that were replaced didnt have to come over any oceans. all the important stuff kept working. it is a mechanical entity as such it will break and it will need repair. if it were here parts for it would cross the atlantic ocean. you might be more familiar with it if you looked west a bit farther than your nose. can you not cope with the idea that a european car can run for 16 yrs/180000 mls and not even need many bits replaced if you had read my previous posts youd know im just fine with that bit of supposition on your part no matter how true it may or may not be. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max dodge wrote my last uk vauxhall cavalier lasted 180000 miles and 16 yrs without any major parts replacement at all. original clutch afaik too. youre daft if you think maintenance is expensive because of euro design too. and you are daft if you think the parts for these cars simply skip over the ocean free of charge. what ocean you dont seem to have a point. i said it needed very few replacement parts. those parts that were replaced didnt have to come over any oceans. all the important stuff kept working. can you not cope with the idea that a european car can run for 16 yrs/180000 mls and not even need many bits replaced graham .

From : richard sexton

jcr nospam@nospam.com wrote message from pooh bear written on 2/5/2006 731 am martin joseph wrote netscape version 4 is a dinosaur. upgrade. it works just fine for my groups requirements. upgrading for its own sake is a mugs game. graham you may want to review the laundry list of vulnerabilities that outdated software can expose your pc to. its really a best practices question. if by that you mean on windows-xp id agree. otherwise not so much as you might think. -- need mercedes parts - http//parts.mbz.org richard sexton | mercedes stuff http//mbz.org 1970 280se 72 280se | home page http//rs79.vrx.net 633csi 250se/c 300sd | http//aquaria.net http//killi.net .

From : richard sexton

pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote perhaps you can enlighten me what vulnerabilities exist reading groups. i use opera for web browsing. my av is set to auto-update it normally does so daily and im using a recent version of zone alarm. if youre running xp youre vulnerable just by being connected to the net even if youre not doing anything. new vulnerabilities come out all the time and it takes ms a few days at least to fix them. and thats being kind. -- need mercedes parts - http//parts.mbz.org richard sexton | mercedes stuff http//mbz.org 1970 280se 72 280se | home page http//rs79.vrx.net 633csi 250se/c 300sd | http//aquaria.net http//killi.net .

From : richard sexton

arif khokar akhokar1234@wvu.edu wrote pooh bear wrote martin joseph wrote netscape version 4 is a dinosaur. upgrade. it works just fine for my groups requirements. but i use the browser as well. many websites will not be handled correctly by netscape 4.x and in my case caused the application to freeze. turn javascript off. this is a recording. -- need mercedes parts - http//parts.mbz.org richard sexton | mercedes stuff http//mbz.org 1970 280se 72 280se | home page http//rs79.vrx.net 633csi 250se/c 300sd | http//aquaria.net http//killi.net .

From : richard sexton

pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote daniel j. stern wrote on sat 4 feb 2006 hernando correa wrote usenet is full of people that will argue anything. is not! is too! is not times infinity! is too times infinity and *beyond* is too triple dare and *beyond* you keep out of this nazi! http//www.reference.com/browse/wiki/godwinslaw never let a lawyer steal your best jokes and write his own wiki pages. -- need mercedes parts - http//parts.mbz.org richard sexton | mercedes stuff http//mbz.org 1970 280se 72 280se | home page http//rs79.vrx.net 633csi 250se/c 300sd | http//aquaria.net http//killi.net .

From : roy

on sun 05 feb 2006 105916 +0000 pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote arif khokar wrote theguy wrote well thanks for letting me know i missed one for the killfile. theguy is a truly class act . graham thank you graham err pooh bear. i wish that i could return the favor but then............ well.....you know. ya know im starting to get a visual on this pooh bear. i cant for the life of me undestand why a adult male would pick a chidlike name. but it is what it is. roy i certainly do appreciate that i have had an imact upon you and arif. you see it is the small things that make life worth while. .

From : tbone

i didnt think so. a friend brought it up. another said the same thing you did. thanks a bunch ed why would they do that when mercedes already builds them. i would think that if they left cummins they would go their especially since it is also owned by daimler. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving just curious. ed .

From : pooh bear

as for the roads - well until youve driven through a few indian pot-holes you havent experienced how bad roads can really be. you havent seen pennsylvania highways have you -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max dodge wrote perhaps you think that is a real pounding but reality tells me that use in the states can be very harsh to a car that isnt designed here in the states. lol. yes you find it funny i find it sad. in general an asian designed vehicle will last maybe five years without major needs. you really need to get out ! in asia ppl cant afford to replace cars willy-nilly. id expect some of the cars on indian roads easily to be 20 yrs old. they dont rust that much over there actually. as for the roads - well until youve driven through a few indian pot-holes you havent experienced how bad roads can really be. graham .

From : pooh bear

my 98 dodge dakota sport was also making that horrible rattling noise and my dad and i who drive the truck dealt with the noise for months. so finally today my dad took it to a shop who said that the insides of the cat were all broken up and they said they could replace the cat with one that wont pass smog for way cheaper than the right one. so my dad did it. they said it isnt an obdii or something. and they said that if we need the truck smogged to take it back to him and he will smog it. does this sound wierd or what and they checked our check engine light and got the code p0422. anyways let me know please trisha.......... .

From : roy

max dodge wrote by roosevelt or churchill both actually neither. japan declared war on the usa followed by germany. the usa had no choice. it was dragged into the war by the axis powers. graham .

From : guenter scholz

theguy wrote i dont know about the rest of you but it is hard to get excited about arguing with a guy that calls himself pooh bear. lmfao i mean come on pooh bear hey nighty nite pooh bear. is that the best you can do mr theguy ! lmfao theguy who know f**k all apparently. graham .

From : denny

on sun 05 feb 2006 105916 +0000 pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote arif khokar wrote theguy wrote well thanks for letting me know i missed one for the killfile. theguy is a truly class act . graham thank you graham err pooh bear. i wish that i could return the favor but then............ well.....you know. ya know im starting to get a visual on this pooh bear. i cant for the life of me undestand why a adult male would pick a chidlike name. but it is what it is. roy this being the internet why did you ever assume it was an adult male denny .

From : jcr

message from pooh bear written on 2/5/2006 731 am martin joseph wrote netscape version 4 is a dinosaur. upgrade. it works just fine for my groups requirements. upgrading for its own sake is a mugs game. graham you may want to review the laundry list of vulnerabilities that outdated software can expose your pc to. its really a best practices question. .

From : pooh bear

jcr wrote message from pooh bear written on 2/5/2006 731 am martin joseph wrote netscape version 4 is a dinosaur. upgrade. it works just fine for my groups requirements. upgrading for its own sake is a mugs game. graham you may want to review the laundry list of vulnerabilities that outdated software can expose your pc to. its really a best practices question. perhaps you can enlighten me what vulnerabilities exist reading groups. i use opera for web browsing. my av is set to auto-update it normally does so daily and im using a recent version of zone alarm. graham .

From : pooh bear

arif khokar wrote pooh bear wrote martin joseph wrote netscape version 4 is a dinosaur. upgrade. it works just fine for my groups requirements. but i use the browser as well. many websites will not be handled correctly by netscape 4.x and in my case caused the application to freeze. also using an insecure os like win 98 doesnt help matters either. obviously an older browser wont handle websites with all the clutter features that exist now. i use opera for browsing. whats so insecure about w98se btw graham .

From : roy

on sun 05 feb 2006 105916 +0000 pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote arif khokar wrote theguy wrote well thanks for letting me know i missed one for the killfile. theguy is a truly class act . graham thank you graham err pooh bear. i wish that i could return the favor but then............ well.....you know. ya know im starting to get a visual on this pooh bear. i cant for the life of me undestand why a adult male would pick a chidlike name. but it is what it is. roy this being the internet why did you ever assume it was an adult male well ol pooh signs its posts graham. but what the hell does that prove anyway you turned out to be a pink rabbit although packing heat! bfg roy denny .

From : theguy

on sun 5 feb 2006 173719 -0500 roy roy@home.net wrote on sun 05 feb 2006 105916 +0000 pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote arif khokar wrote theguy wrote well thanks for letting me know i missed one for the killfile. theguy is a truly class act . graham thank you graham err pooh bear. i wish that i could return the favor but then............ well.....you know. ya know im starting to get a visual on this pooh bear. i cant for the life of me undestand why a adult male would pick a chidlike name. but it is what it is. roy this being the internet why did you ever assume it was an adult male well ol pooh signs its posts graham. but what the hell does that prove anyway you turned out to be a pink rabbit although packing heat! bfg i dont think that is what graham aka pooh bear is packing though. roy denny .

From : arif khokar

pooh bear wrote martin joseph wrote netscape version 4 is a dinosaur. upgrade. it works just fine for my groups requirements. but i use the browser as well. many websites will not be handled correctly by netscape 4.x and in my case caused the application to freeze. also using an insecure os like win 98 doesnt help matters either. .

From : clare at snyder on ca

on sun 12 feb 2006 072318 gmt max dodge max340@verizon.net wrote which is clearly a liberals attempt to sway people to believe that cars should be outlawed. rubbish. it is an attempt to get people such as the diehard conservatives who wish to be free of foreign oil to realize that accomplishing that goal will only be done if we move commuters to a more efficient method of transport. near me is an intersection which used to be one of the top 10 accident sites in illinois. at the time oh about 20 years ago or so that intersection had more than 300000 cars pass per day. ok cut it in half for two streets and again by half for each direction. we are now at 75000 per day. suddenly the number passing per hour average is 3125. clearly that is a little more than 8000 um no its not since what they said was 8000 passing one point. clearly your much travelled intersection is well within the figure they mention. and since the majority of that traffic was not traveling at midnight it is even higher than the average would indicate. oh it is also the intersection of a side street from a neighborhood onto us 30 which at that point is in the middle of park forest illinois and so would not be in any way looked at as a highway. it wasnt even a well made road until they improved that area by making it 3 lanes each way. i am pretty sure that the day time average is closer to 20000 cars an hour. um maybe but i doubt it. but lets assume for a moment it is. thats a 12 car train every five minutes. go to 15 cars and the train kicks your intersections ass handily. the next thing to look at is the fact that the icg rail line that the chicago metra train uses to bring people from that intersection down town is only useful once people have driven as much as 30 or more miles to get to the train. then they have to walk or use a cab or a bus or another fucking train once they get down town. well thats why the fucking liberals are suggesting that we develop more rail routes and save people time fuel and hassle. some people are so focused on showing the superiority of mass transit that they have to ignore all the waste that is required just to get people to the mass transit. so youd prefer that people drove all the way instead of just part of the way and that the cities should be filled with parking garages and that isnt a waste the only reason people use metra is because the cost of parking down town exceeds the value they would get by driving. so its not a waste after all. for those who drive down town however the cost of driving to the metra station parking there and then taking mass transit once they get down town far exceeds the cost of driving down town. the point of those of us who are so focussed on showing the efficiency of trains is because we feel the long term benefits at all levels not just to the country but the individuals as well as the cities and suburban areas will far exceed the initial cost of making the location of these rail lines more accessable. at some point the country will wake up. probably right after the wave of inflation that is sure to come with the fuel prices where they are. then people will demand that the government come up with a solution... and itll be light rail routes. which with the abovementioned inflation will cost over twice as much to build then as it would now - assuming the lands required for the rail have not been redeveloped making land aquasition impossibly expensive. the time to plan for urban and inter-urban mass transit is now if not yesterday. at this point in time our urban transportation system is in-efficient because they use the same sized bus on all routes. the route closest to my home could at todays usage be operated with a 20 passenger bus and still be under-utilized except when kids are going to or from school where doubling the frequency for that time period would give adequate capacity. *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .

From : dori a schmetterling

can carry is right. in peak hour it might. and the rest of the day das -- for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- ... from http//www.rco.on.ca/factsheet/fsb02.html#canada/%20canadians comparisons a commuter train carrying 80 passengers requires roughly 710 british thermal units btu of energy per passenger per mile and a trolley with 55 passengers uses around 1050 btu per passenger mile and a one person car some 7380. public transport also saves valuable city space. buses and trains carry more people in each vehicle and if they operate on their own right-of-way particularly in underground tunnels can safely run at much higher speeds. an underground metro can carry 70000 passengers past a certain point in a single lane in one hour surface rapid rail can carry up to 50000 people and a trolley or a bus in a separate lane more than 30000. a lane of private cars with four occupants by contrast can move only about 8000 people per hour. out of the car into the future by marcia d. lowe. ww nov/dec 1990 .

From : huw

learn to read you pompous jackass. what is the sg of diesel fuel compared to gasoline i clearly stated by unit of volume. you dont buy fuel by the tonne. since you read at a kids level ill give you a kids page to explain it. see http//www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/sources/non-renewable/diesel.html where it clearly states diesel fuel contains between 18 and 30 percent more energy per gallon than gasoline proving i was being conservative and you huw were wrong. i see that you take the word of the doe when it serves you albeit the kids page. these are the volumetric densities. gasoline has 29mj/l diesel has 32.18 mj/l from this you can deduce that diesel has around 11% more energy per given volume with a range of 10.5% to under 12%. this contrasts with the 18 to 30% more given in the kiddies page to which you provide a link which gives a totally ridiculous 65% variation in the range of density lol with an inaccuracy to the nearest figure of 65% and to the furthest figure of nearly 200%. not even good enough for the kiddies. huw .

From : dori a schmetterling

i find it interesting that uk long-distance coach bus fares are genrally lower than rail fares afaik. buses are not subsidised whereas rail is. das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- ... 20 people aboard a 55 seater coach at 10mpg gives a real life fuel consumption of 200 passenger miles per gallon which is near double that actually achieved by british railways. ... .

From : clare at snyder on ca

on sun 12 feb 2006 185012 -0000 huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote on sun 12 feb 2006 171644 gmt max dodge max340@verizon.net wrote for my use even at the higher price my mpg vs. a gasoline powered truck of the same model makes diesel a more economical choice. diesel is more costly now because of more detailed refining such as the removal of sulfer. however ill agree that it makes little sense that fuel that used to cost about half what a gallon of gasoline did now costs up to 25% more than a gallon of gasoline. pricing today is based on the number of btus you are buying - whether propane coal gasoline or diesel oil you will find the pricing very close. and diesel contains some 20% more energy than gasoline per unit of volume. *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** specific net calorific values are as below. there is nothing like a 20% difference between petrol and diesel. fuel is priced according to supply and demand as well as value in comparison with other fuels so diesel and kero should be cheaper in summer when domestic and industrial non transport use is lowest. the rise in price in relation to gasoline during recent years is a reflection of its increasing market share in relation to refining capacity as well as an element of opportunism by the oil companies. toe/tonne refinery gas 1.150 lpg 1.130 ethane 1.130 motor gasoline 1.070 jet fuel 1.065 kerosene 1.045 naphtha 1.075 gas/diesel oil 1.035 as you can see there is less than 5% difference in energy density between them by weight. gas natural and crude oil also vary in energy value according to region. if you really want the relationships i can provide them to you with a click. huw learn to read you pompous jackass. what is the sg of diesel fuel compared to gasoline i clearly stated by unit of volume. you dont buy fuel by the tonne. since you read at a kids level ill give you a kids page to explain it. see http//www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/sources/non-renewable/diesel.html where it clearly states diesel fuel contains between 18 and 30 percent more energy per gallon than gasoline proving i was being conservative and you huw were wrong. *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .

From : dtj

on sat 11 feb 2006 234211 -0500 clare at snyder.on.ca wrote on sat 11 feb 2006 211525 -0600 dtj none@nowhere.com wrote which is clearly a liberals attempt to sway people to believe that cars should be outlawed. may be but its on the internet so its every bit as credible as the figures given by huw. im not saying they are accurate but they are no less accurate than those huw is spewing. the idiot you refer to is a troll and i plonked his sorry excuse for a person the first day. may i suggest you do the same. even judy has more brains than that fucktard. ************************* dave .

From : whoever

on sun 12 feb 2006 clare@snyder.on.ca wrote on mon 13 feb 2006 002540 +0000 pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote dori a schmetterling wrote we may also be msixing up long and short gallons. btw my honda 175 which i had in the late 70s returned about 70 mpg imperial what do you call an imperial gallon btw 16 or 20 fl oz graham 160 last time i checked. compared to 128 for a yankee gallon its not that simple imperial fl oz and us fl oz. are not the same. the us measure is slightly larger so the ratio between a us and an imperial gallon or pint ends up closer to 5/6 than 4/5. .

From : martin joseph

on 2006-02-09 161145 -0800 pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com said i discovered that the us epa uses a figure of 12500 mi per annum for cars. uk average mileage is certainly 12000 mi commonly accepted figure the epa is completely full of shit fyi just look at there mileage ratings. .

From : huw

on sun 12 feb 2006 clare@snyder.on.ca wrote on mon 13 feb 2006 002540 +0000 pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote dori a schmetterling wrote we may also be msixing up long and short gallons. btw my honda 175 which i had in the late 70s returned about 70 mpg imperial what do you call an imperial gallon btw 16 or 20 fl oz graham 160 last time i checked. compared to 128 for a yankee gallon its not that simple imperial fl oz and us fl oz. are not the same. the us measure is slightly larger so the ratio between a us and an imperial gallon or pint ends up closer to 5/6 than 4/5. 1 us gallon is 0.8326738 uk gallons 1uk gallon is 1.20095 us gallon hth. huw .

From : huw

on sat 11 feb 2006 234211 -0500 clare at snyder.on.ca wrote on sat 11 feb 2006 211525 -0600 dtj none@nowhere.com wrote which is clearly a liberals attempt to sway people to believe that cars should be outlawed. may be but its on the internet so its every bit as credible as the figures given by huw. im not saying they are accurate but they are no less accurate than those huw is spewing. the idiot you refer to is a troll and i plonked his sorry excuse for a person the first day. may i suggest you do the same. even judy has more brains than that fucktard. dear dave. this us usenet where even the lowest tenth percentile of society who never have anything useful to contribute to anything have the same posting rights as myself and others here as you so aptly and gloriously demonstrate. huw .

From : clare at snyder on ca

on sun 12 feb 2006 211537 -0800 whoever nobody@devnull.none wrote on sun 12 feb 2006 clare@snyder.on.ca wrote on mon 13 feb 2006 002540 +0000 pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote dori a schmetterling wrote we may also be msixing up long and short gallons. btw my honda 175 which i had in the late 70s returned about 70 mpg imperial what do you call an imperial gallon btw 16 or 20 fl oz graham 160 last time i checked. compared to 128 for a yankee gallon its not that simple imperial fl oz and us fl oz. are not the same. the us measure is slightly larger so the ratio between a us and an imperial gallon or pint ends up closer to 5/6 than 4/5. no a fifth of scotch is one us quart. there are exactly 5 us quarts to the imperial gallon. i lived with the imperial system for most of my life right next door to the u s of a. there are 128 imperial fluid ounces in a yankey gallon and 160 in an imperial or crown gallon.. *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .

From : martin joseph

on 2006-02-07 153319 -0800 pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com said i believe opera is also currently the best web standards compliant browser around. it does dislike some presumably ie specific code occasionally though. actually apples safari is the first mass distribution browser to pass the acid2 web standards test afaik. you can try it in your browser here http//www.webstandards.org/act/acid2/test.html .

From : joe pfeiffer

clare at snyder.on.ca writes no a fifth of scotch is one us quart. there are exactly 5 us quarts to the imperial gallon. i lived with the imperial system for most of my life right next door to the u s of a. what was sold in the us as a fifth of liquor was 1/5 of a us gallon 4/5 of a us quart. see http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/u.s.customaryunits -- joseph j. pfeiffer jr. ph.d. phone -- 505 646-1605 department of computer science fax -- 505 646-1002 new mexico state university http//www.cs.nmsu.edu/pfeiffer skype jjpfeifferjr .

From : grouchodtj

edward l. dowdy wrote i didnt think so. a friend brought it up. another said the same thing you did. thanks a bunch ed bet your buddy asks you next to find out if ford owns cummins. - .

From : tbonemax dodge

parts travel both ways. they sure do and when they do the price for them goes up. the point wasnt that the parts had to travel but that shipping them added to their total cost. unlike your examples parts for foreign makes here in the states cost much more not just a dollar or two than similar parts for domestic. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max dodge wrote what ocean you dont seem to have a point. i said it needed very few replacement parts. those parts that were replaced didnt have to come over any oceans. all the important stuff kept working. it is a mechanical entity as such it will break and it will need repair. if it were here parts for it would cross the atlantic ocean. you might be more familiar with it if you looked west a bit farther than your nose. parts travel both ways. the parts for the us built x5 and mclass i owned were no different to german built models. parts for japanese built vehicles are no more expensive then british built japanese brands. transport cost is trivial from the us to europe and vise-versa. a container will contain many thousands of parts but will cost about $1500 to ship from store to store which is likely to be less than a dollar an item. in fact the manufacturer will charge a percentage for transport so that a filter will have maybe 10c transport while a $100 part will have maybe $2 added. can you not cope with the idea that a european car can run for 16 yrs/180000 mls and not even need many bits replaced if you had read my previous posts youd know im just fine with that bit of supposition on your part no matter how true it may or may not be. so you have doubts. hmm. huw .

From : max dodge

if rail is no less expensive that truck haulage for heavy commodities it begs the question why anyone uses it ! in the states this depends on routes and rates of the various companies both rail and truck. if proper planning is put forth rail is more efficient and could be used as a long term solution to an energy shortage. what huw refuses to believe is that not only can frieght and passengers be carried with equal efficiency but that rail can be used effectively in the big picture. somehow all the people who claim rail wont work are set on keeping rail exactly as it is. certainly that wont work long term and the railroads know it. thus they are making changes and investing money to take advantage of their efficiency. the only difficult thing here is opening ones mind to see possibilitites rather than assumptions. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author huw wrote max dodge wrote your lack of understanding if repeated in corporate circles explains a lot about how gm and ford got where they are. if the train were efficient it would be utilised to a greater extent than is now the case. ergo it is not efficient therefore it is not utilised. wrong plonkmeister. you are still confusing cost effective with energy efficient. it cost less to ship by truck but a train is still more energy efficient. you have lost the passenger arguement and are attempting to change the topic to freight. good you just carry on. i must have missed this one. if rail is no less expensive that truck haulage for heavy commodities it begs the question why anyone uses it ! graham .

From : max dodge

it is noteworthy that you have changed from comparing passenger carrying vehicles to heavy freight. you should note that i dont disagree with you that trains are efficient freight carriers as long as they load at the production point and unload at the processing point and the distance is long. it is further noteworthy that if passenger rail were used as extensively as it could be the terminals would be as you suggest in residential work shopping and entertainment centers. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max dodge wrote http//www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/rr/261.pdf this document suggests that freight rail can move at up to 400 ton-miles per gallon. trucks and autos will never touch that level. ships will do much better. i stated somewhere that there were instances where trains were obviously more efficient and indeed they are used in those applications because that is what they are good for. carrying bulk products like coal and ore from production point to end point. http//www.atlintracoastal.org/wwfacts.htm about halfway down this page youll find a table noting emmissions from various freight hauling methods. notable is the fact that trucks are a distant third to trains and waterway transit. it is noteworthy that you have changed from comparing passenger carrying vehicles to heavy freight. you should note that i dont disagree with you that trains are efficient freight carriers as long as they load at the production point and unload at the processing point and the distance is long. huw .

From : alan lehun

that wasnt a practical operational system. ship detectors were demonstated also by the germans and the french prior to ww2. none were practical radars. nor were english ideas on radar practical until the u.s. put their scientists in the same location as the english scientists. chain home was built without any us technology or knowhow. indeed its operations were an official secret which were not shared with the us. in 1940 the cavity magnetron was invented at birmingham uk university. churchill realising that britain simply didnt have the resources to develop this technology or any of the other emerging technologies was eventually persuaded that the us be allowed unfettered access to all the undeveloped technologies that britain had that could be used in the war against germany in return for access to the uss developments of them. the magnetron along with details of the the chain home system the jet engine and numerous other things were taken to america in september 1940. it was described as being a thousand times more powerful than any american transmitter and also as being the most valuable cargo ever brought to our shores. google for the tizard mission us brits can still be proud that before wwii we were the most technologically innovative country in the world. oh how times change... ahh. a wiki page http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/tizardmission -- alan lehun .

From : pooh bear

tbone wrote even if we were exactly that the fact is america does rule. like others have said if we closed our borders the rest of you would die like it or not. die of laughter perhaps ! graham .

From : theguy

on tue 31 jan 2006 232351 +0000 pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote tbone wrote even if we were exactly that the fact is america does rule. like others have said if we closed our borders the rest of you would die like it or not. die of laughter perhaps ! oh come on now pooh bear. dont get our hopes up. graham .

From : tbone

max dodge wrote by roosevelt or churchill both actually neither. japan declared war on the usa followed by germany. the usa had no choice. it was dragged into the war by the axis powers. lol churchill knew about the surprise attack on perl before it happened and so did roosevelt. roosevelt knew that this country needed a punch in the face to motivate the people for what would come. kind of lucky for us that the most important ships in the pacific were nowhere to be found during this attack huh lol! and of course we were gearing up military production prior to the war only to help our allies the british right!! -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

on sun 29 jan 2006 212747 -0500 christopher thompson kf4drr@alltel.net wrote you may not know this but there are actually good quality readers out there and outhouse express isnt one of them. on sun 29 jan 2006 140815 -0500 christopher thompson kf4drr@alltel.net wrote ok so you mean to tell me the crude oil admitting its a non renuable resource that we will eventually run out of show how it is non renewable. i assume that is what you meant. crude oil is a fossil fuel and takes what millions of years to make natually who knows but whether it takes a week or billions of years it is renewable. it isnt like they taught you in grade school - oil did not just come from dinosaurs. lol you are kidding right. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

reading below i wonder if anyone went to school. to wit pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote max dodge wrote and yet we managed to prevent all of europe from speaking german lol! actually truth be told it was the russians .... the us essentially mopped up at the end when it was all over anyway... geesh talk about beating the rag tag bunch that was left over after the russians got through with them. lol and what planet are getting this history from are you really this jealous of the us excellent point. im always fascinated by the way people from outside the u.s. criticize our actions. frankly half of us disagree with any given military action. fortunately when most of the u.s. was opposed to going to war in 1940 we decided to enter the european theatre regardless. well i wont get into why i think the us got into the war.... perhaps because you are incapable of thought. no you didnt ! you waited til japan bombed pearl harbor over 2 years after the start of ww2. us forces didnt arrive *in the uk* until 1942. this saved england from invasion whatever makes you think anyone was interested in invading in the first place.... lol like i said incapable of thought do you not remember that hitler thing moron. i would have thought that dunkirk put an end to that assumption. lol it does no such thing. england was saved from invasion by the battle of britain in which the us played not one single jot. a terror campaign does not an invasion make. lol what an idiot. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : budd cochran mrd150 preciscom spam net

then you can plonk me because i top post because i find it more convenient. budd on tue 31 jan 2006 012553 gmt tom lawrence tnloaswpraemnmcien5g@earthlink.net wrote unsnipped post below. nobody does this so after a while top posters are only replying to each other because all intelligent posters plonk them within a few posts. okay... i dont personally do it because i also like to edit out irrelevant parts. i just dont get my nuts in a vise over it and predict the downfall of human civilization when someone puts their comments at the top. who has done that i merely make use of the fact that repeat top-posters frequently do so out of arrogance - as if to say fuck you i dont have to obey any social conventions. people with this sort of attitude generally dont have anything valuable to contribute to a discussion. i figure i might as well use it as a leading indicator and plonk them right away saving valuable time. -- what the heck ill play too. - dave .

From : pooh bear

ed pirrero wrote budd cochran wrote england was saved from invasion by the battle of britain in which the us played not one single jot. really what about all the equipment the us supplied the british forces like the mustang fighter plane the p-51 did not make it over in any real numbers until 1943. battle of britain was summer 1940. it was almost exclusively a brit on german air war. in fact it was a near thing. without radar and very high aircraft factory output britain would probably been invaded and most likely would have been completely overrun in a few weeks. we owe our successes in ww2 to those few who stood off the german air assault in 1940. so budd stop showing your ass and learn some history. a huge debt is also owed to those who had the foresight not just to research radar but to actually implement the worlds first integrated air defence system luckily completed before hostilities began. the following nationalities also flew with the raf or fleet air arm during the battle polish 139 new zealander 98 canadian 86 czechoslovakian 84 belgian 29 australian 21 south african 20 french 13 irish 10 unknown 8 american 7 jamaican 1 palestinian jewish 1 southern rhodesian 1 graham .

From : dori a schmetterling

and he can block me too. it might reduce his posts which have been mostly anger-driven abusive drivel. das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- then you can plonk me because i top post because i find it more convenient. budd on tue 31 jan 2006 012553 gmt tom lawrence tnloaswpraemnmcien5g@earthlink.net wrote unsnipped post below. nobody does this so after a while top posters are only replying to each other because all intelligent posters plonk them within a few posts. okay... i dont personally do it because i also like to edit out irrelevant parts. i just dont get my nuts in a vise over it and predict the downfall of human civilization when someone puts their comments at the top. who has done that i merely make use of the fact that repeat top-posters frequently do so out of arrogance - as if to say fuck you i dont have to obey any social conventions. people with this sort of attitude generally dont have anything valuable to contribute to a discussion. i figure i might as well use it as a leading indicator and plonk them right away saving valuable time. -- what the heck ill play too. - dave .

From : guenter scholz

tbone tbonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote actually truth be told it was the russians .... the us essentially mopped up at the end when it was all over anyway... geesh lol and what planet are getting this history from are you really this jealous of the us are you suggesting by any chance that the russians were not the desicive criteria in winning ww2 for the allies yes the us supplied arms etc etc but come on give credit where credit is due. it happend over 2 generations ago and objectivity should start to prevail. i will grant you though that it was the us presence in europe near the end of the war that prevented europe from going compeltely to the russians..... and that as i indicated below is probably one of the main reasons for their presence..... to contain the russians. patton probably had the right idea.... too bad. well i wont get into why i think the us got into the war.... perhaps because you are incapable of thought. no i try see above. whatever makes you think anyone was interested in invading in the first place.... lol like i said incapable of thought do you not remember that hitler thing moron. whats the point with the moron you do yourself little service. are you unaware that the major part of the war was fought in the east so you are suggesting that germany wanted to take on the russians and launch an invasion of england which meant facing the rn are you serious why do you think nothing happend after dunkirk... barbarossa was on the agenda i would have thought that dunkirk put an end to that assumption. lol it does no such thing. i suggest to you that the fact that barbarossa happend and that the royal navy existed does put an end to speculation of invading england. more worthwhile would be to speculate that germany might have been putting some pressure on england via the luftwaffe to try and reach an accomodation with england - ie churchill. you should read a well research book on admiral cannaris.... intresting figure for the abwehr. england was saved from invasion by the battle of britain in which the us played not one single jot. a terror campaign does not an invasion make. lol what an idiot. well why not inform us of your ideas.... cheers .

From : budd cochran mrd150 preciscom spam net

and you thought i was bad . . . . . budd on mon 30 jan 2006 180913 -0600 dtj none@nowhere.com wrote on mon 30 jan 2006 035707 gmt tom lawrence tnloaswpraemnmcien5g@earthlink.net wrote can some one explain to me why people have such a bug up their butt about top-posting i find it much more convenient when reading through a thread... do you read books starting at the end too only top posters do. no and i dont read page 1 then page 1-2 then page 1-3 1-4 etc. when reading down through a thread its helpful to ignore all the crap that ive already read... exactly. which is why there are three forms of posting one of which is unacceptable. geez dave. you really are hung up on rules. you are one fucked up up tight guy. the first method is bottom posting. it is very acceptable as long as the poster is not a moron and he/she understand how to snip irrelevant portions. the second method is inline posting. that is what i did above. something top posters cant understand. the last method and the only unacceptable one was propagated on usenet by the idiot programmers at microsoft and is called top posting. top posters are too fucking stupid to understand that nobody has any clue what they are talking about until they read the entire unsnipped post below. nobody does this so after a while top posters are only replying to each other because all intelligent posters plonk them within a few posts. ************************* dave .

From : pooh bear

max dodge wrote that wasnt a practical operational system. ship detectors were demonstated also by the germans and the french prior to ww2. none were practical radars. nor were english ideas on radar practical until the u.s. put their scientists in the same location as the english scientists. what britain already had a working radar air defence system before ww2 started. the most practical innovation for radars during this period was the resonant cavity magnetron invented in the uk. please give some example of your assertion. graham .

From : bill putney

pooh bear wrote max dodge wrote i think weve been over this but for your lack of observational skills ill put it here so you see it. we were supplying the uk with war materials well before pearl harbor thats simply a commercial transaction... graham i would believe that it was nothing more than a commercial transaction if the same type of commercial transactions were being openly consumated with germany at the same time. as if our government and industry were saying among themselves hey guys - we have all this industrial and military output - we can sell it to the highest bidder. the brits say they will pay top dollar for it. call up adolf and see if he will counter. tell him that whichever side comes up with the best offer by 2 oclok this coming tuesday gets the goods. simply a commercial transaction my foot. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : dori a schmetterling

i have followed your ping-pong with pooh bear but i am not clear about the relevance of an atlantic crossing. last time i did it it took no more than 7 h. and it took only 11 h to cross that ocean and even cross the american continent to get to la. it even takes up to an hour less going the other way. das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- ... it is a mechanical entity as such it will break and it will need repair. if it were here parts for it would cross the atlantic ocean. you might be more familiar with it if you looked west a bit farther than your nose. ... .

From : bill putney

tbone wrote tbone wrote ...as far as ford and gm go they did dig their own hole by stuffing their heads as far up their collective asses as they possibly could... would it not be more correct to say ...their collective ass... im thinking a collective anything is singular. not at all. i was referring to the collective ass of the managers running each company. two companies two collective asses but thanks for caring. ahh - kind of like saying two clusters of grapes. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : budd cochran mrd150 preciscom spam net

no it shows he like myself live in a country that believes in personal freedoms over government restrictions. like freedom of speech freedom of religion freedom to bear arms . . . but i also believe in gun control . . .my personal best score with an m-16a1 is 297 out of 300 rounds fired. sounds like you are perfect for a socialist monarchy like the uk . . .a willing and well trained pavlovs dog. hey if it makes you feel more comfortable to have the government make all your decisions then so be it but i prefer to make my own choices and prefer to live where i can do so legally. plonk. budd theguy wrote on tue 31 jan 2006 030822 +0000 pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote i suppose you reckon you can win an argument with a gun too ! yeah i imagine i could. why because it shows youre an ignorant fascist. graham .

From : pooh bear

budd cochran wrote england was saved from invasion by the battle of britain in which the us played not one single jot. really what about all the equipment the us supplied the british forces like the mustang fighter plane the mustang prototype didnt fly until 26 oct 1940 by which time the battle of britain targeting the destruction of the raf had been won. the luftwaffe changed its tactics to bombing london - the blitz after 7 sep 1940. the plane first flew on 26 october 1940 http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/p-51mustang a few us volunteers did play a part though. american contribution - the raf recognises 7 americans as having taken part in the battle of britain http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/battleofbritain graham .

From : budd cochran mrd150 preciscom spam net

max dodge wrote and yet we managed to prevent all of europe from speaking german lol! excellent point. im always fascinated by the way people from outside the u.s. criticize our actions. frankly half of us disagree with any given military action. fortunately when most of the u.s. was opposed to going to war in 1940 we decided to enter the european theatre regardless. no you didnt ! you waited til japan bombed pearl harbor over 2 years after the start of ww2. us forces didnt arrive *in the uk* until 1942. aw gee could that be partly because the british government thought they could handle it alone this saved england from invasion england was saved from invasion by the battle of britain in which the us played not one single jot. really what about all the equipment the us supplied the british forces like the mustang fighter plane and lead to the liberation of france. france was liberated by *allied* forces. not just the us. aside from the obvious brits and yanks there were canadians free french poles australians new zealanders indians czechs and many others. gee without american equipment soldiers supplies how far would they havce gotten yet they seem to know better than we how our military works. youre a lying sack of shit. graham no you are simply misinformed. budd .

From : pooh bear

max dodge wrote all of which confirms my assertion that our nations were at work on these things together prior to wwii not in concert at all. the usa gave little priority to radar since for example it felt there was no direct air raid threat. there were simply a few demonstration us radars by late 1940. unlike what some others seem to believe. believe what you like. its a simple fact that the tizard mission energised us war technology thinking. one direct consequence of the tizard mission was the foundation of the radiation laboratory at m.i.t. graham .

From : budd cochran mrd150 preciscom spam net

not to mention the extremely racist comment from one that pretends to be intellectually superior to you or i. budd on mon 30 jan 2006 181510 -0600 dtj none@nowhere.com wrote on mon 30 jan 2006 114634 -0600 bob m ram1220@vzavenue.net wrote you know i have sat here and read this thread and so far i have remained silent. but i am sick and tired of huws america bashing. huw huw is who i figured everyone plonked his chink ass a long time ago. ************************* dave wow. very rude and totally obnoxious. but then since it came from dave no one is at all surprised. .

From : dori a schmetterling

what you dont appear to accept is the premise that there is a role for rail but only one limited to certain circumstances. it is not a panacea. if it were then all the lines that have been closed would not have been. britain germany did you research why all the convenient factory railheads were closed you talk about energy efficiency but the approach you have used does not appear to take on board the real world and we are back to my example of freight from butte to rochester which i do not think you have yet addressed. das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- ... the only difficult thing here is opening ones mind to see possibilitites rather than assumptions. -- max ... .

From : alan lehun

goo1959spam@cableone.net says... http//www.i-am-bored.com/boredlink.cfmlinkid=15438 the old toyotas rusted almost instantly and the interiors fell apart pretty quickly too but the drivetrain lasted forever. my neighbors had an early 80s truck that rusted so fast it was almost a joke but a 4x4 and plywood bed kept it running many years. it was passed down from kid to kid as a first vehicle. it finally got taken to the crusher at around age 15 when its frame cracked after the youngest kid hit a pothole and lost front passenger side wheel and hub. they were getting ready to fix it again but saw the cracked frame and said goodbye. the replacement 96 or 97 toy is long gone and the one that replaced it too... now they have an explorer all the kids still at home drive. the toyotas arent what they used to be..too bad.. bdk my first wife had a toyota corolla when we meet. tough little car but a joke as far as comfort! hard thin seats no air am radio but. it ran like a champ. after we got married she drove my chevy and i rode my motorcycle or the toy. i beat the hell out of it for two years and the only problem i had was a screw come loose on the shift linkage in the tranny. not a big deal to repair it was like a miniature muncie four speed with the shift linkage on the side cover. popped off the cover tighten the set screw and away it went. the repair took 1/2 or so. i used to speed shift through the gears with it just hold the gas peddle to the floor and run the clutch and shift gears. never did break anything! -- poorub 05 ultra classic .

From : max dodge

all of which confirms my assertion that our nations were at work on these things together prior to wwii unlike what some others seem to believe. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author that wasnt a practical operational system. ship detectors were demonstated also by the germans and the french prior to ww2. none were practical radars. nor were english ideas on radar practical until the u.s. put their scientists in the same location as the english scientists. chain home was built without any us technology or knowhow. indeed its operations were an official secret which were not shared with the us. in 1940 the cavity magnetron was invented at birmingham uk university. churchill realising that britain simply didnt have the resources to develop this technology or any of the other emerging technologies was eventually persuaded that the us be allowed unfettered access to all the undeveloped technologies that britain had that could be used in the war against germany in return for access to the uss developments of them. the magnetron along with details of the the chain home system the jet engine and numerous other things were taken to america in september 1940. it was described as being a thousand times more powerful than any american transmitter and also as being the most valuable cargo ever brought to our shores. google for the tizard mission us brits can still be proud that before wwii we were the most technologically innovative country in the world. oh how times change... ahh. a wiki page http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/tizardmission -- alan lehun .

From : theguy

on tue 31 jan 2006 221138 gmt tbone tbonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote on sun 29 jan 2006 212747 -0500 christopher thompson kf4drr@alltel.net wrote you may not know this but there are actually good quality readers out there and outhouse express isnt one of them. on sun 29 jan 2006 140815 -0500 christopher thompson kf4drr@alltel.net wrote ok so you mean to tell me the crude oil admitting its a non renuable resource that we will eventually run out of show how it is non renewable. i assume that is what you meant. crude oil is a fossil fuel and takes what millions of years to make natually who knows but whether it takes a week or billions of years it is renewable. it isnt like they taught you in grade school - oil did not just come from dinosaurs. lol you are kidding right. i dont think he is! scary isnt it i think pooh bear might be having a little trouble with his meds. .

From : pooh bear

alan lehun wrote @preciscom says... hey if it makes you feel more comfortable to have the government make all your decisions then so be it but i prefer to make my own choices and prefer to live where i can do so legally. actually in my visits to the states i have found an oppression that is simply not seen in europe. it comes not from the government but from the people themselves and the media. criticise democracy or the american dream or anything that culturally identifies america and you face being completely ostracised by your peers. americans just dont seem able or willing to criticise themselves to any significant degree. of course on this side of the pond we sometimes appear to actively encourage it which doesnt seem too smart to me either. constructive criticism is no bad thing though. i concur with your view though. it seems as if any mere hint that one might think america isnt *perfect* results in a hostile over-reaction from the colonists. yet the yanks seem to think its their place to criticise everyone else ! a style of reaction to criticism that has much in common with islamists in fact ! graham .

From : ed pirrero

budd cochran wrote england was saved from invasion by the battle of britain in which the us played not one single jot. really what about all the equipment the us supplied the british forces like the mustang fighter plane the p-51 did not make it over in any real numbers until 1943. battle of britain was summer 1940. it was almost exclusively a brit on german air war. in fact it was a near thing. without radar and very high aircraft factory output britain would probably been invaded and most likely would have been completely overrun in a few weeks. we owe our successes in ww2 to those few who stood off the german air assault in 1940. so budd stop showing your ass and learn some history. e.p. .

From : alan lehun

@preciscom says... hey if it makes you feel more comfortable to have the government make all your decisions then so be it but i prefer to make my own choices and prefer to live where i can do so legally. actually in my visits to the states i have found an oppression that is simply not seen in europe. it comes not from the government but from the people themselves and the media. criticise democracy or the american dream or anything that culturally identifies america and you face being completely ostracised by your peers. americans just dont seem able or willing to criticise themselves to any significant degree. of course on this side of the pond we sometimes appear to actively encourage it which doesnt seem too smart to me either. -- alan lehun .

From : greg opooh bear

budd cochran wrote max dodge wrote this saved england from invasion england was saved from invasion by the battle of britain in which the us played not one single jot. really what about all the equipment the us supplied the british forces like the mustang fighter plane *** there werent any mustangs around during the battle of britain ***. the main raf fighter at that time was the hurricane but the spitfire got most of the limelight. when those mustangs did finally arrive they simply didnt perform as well as the british fighters due to the poor allison engine. it was the raf that had the bright idea of putting a rolls royce merlin in one - and production was the switched to use us license built merlins after which it did rather better. those mustangs were *ordered* by the raf btw on a commercial contract to boost aircraft production .the usa didnt just give them away. in fact the mustang only ever existed on account of that raf order it would never even have been designed otherwise. graham .

From : pooh bear

bill putney wrote pooh bear wrote max dodge wrote i think weve been over this but for your lack of observational skills ill put it here so you see it. we were supplying the uk with war materials well before pearl harbor thats simply a commercial transaction... graham i would believe that it was nothing more than a commercial transaction if the same type of commercial transactions were being openly consumated with germany at the same time. as if our government and industry were saying among themselves hey guys - we have all this industrial and military output - we can sell it to the highest bidder. the brits say they will pay top dollar for it. call up adolf and see if he will counter. tell him that whichever side comes up with the best offer by 2 oclok this coming tuesday gets the goods. simply a commercial transaction my foot. commercial transactions often include some element of choice. graham .

From : alan lehun

@preciscom says... no you didnt ! you waited til japan bombed pearl harbor over 2 years after the start of ww2. us forces didnt arrive *in the uk* until 1942. aw gee could that be partly because the british government thought they could handle it alone certainly not once churchill got in power. england was saved from invasion by the battle of britain in which the us played not one single jot. really what about all the equipment the us supplied the british forces like the mustang fighter plane the battle of britain was in 1940. britain got its first p51 in 1942. your logic appears flawed. prior to the battle of britain us aid was confined mostly to food oil and raw materials notably steel. gee without american equipment soldiers supplies how far would they havce gotten probably just north and central france and probably a year or two later. the ussr have taken all the land east of the german west border and all the mediterranean coastal land would probably have bullied us into handing it over. yet they seem to know better than we how our military works. youre a lying sack of shit. graham no you are simply misinformed. budd -- alan lehun .

From : theguy

on tue 31 jan 2006 213553 gmt tbone tbonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote tbone wrote tbone wrote there is no way to compete fairly with countries that pay their workers next to nothing its not the *countries* that pay those workers its the factories that employ them. often owned by american companies. americans love low labour costs for cheap imports but only when it doesnt threaten their own jobs. oh. and the european countries are immune to this lol! youre trying to dodge the issue by changing it doesnt fool me. really you do seem easily fooled. good point. .

From : pooh bear

tbone wrote hitler never attempted to make german the only language in europe. how do you know the germans considered themselves superior to most other races or nationalities. they simply didnt want the scum to be able to talk understand their language. graham .

From : alan lehun

rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com says... you seem perhaps not to be aware that the germans saw themselves as the master race. not strictly true. they saw the aryan race as being the master race of which the germans amongst others were descended. -- alan lehun .

From : bill putney

alan lehun wrote i also speak relatively of course from a country that allows people to ...preach to others of the complete destruction of our way of life. something i just cant imagine happening over there. heh heh! democrat congressmen do it all the time! bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : pooh bear

bill putney wrote pooh bear wrote hitler never attempted to make german the only language in europe. graham yeah - i can see him in a staff meeting saying in the late 30s we are going to delay the war. our very first step will be to get everyone in europe speaking german - well simply ask everyone to comply with that request and they will do so gladly. then once that is accomplished we will take our army and start the war to defeat everyone. but not until we first have tehm all speaking german. you are quite the idiot. and dishonest too pretending like you didnt know what was meant by ...we managed to prevent all of europe from speaking german. but i find that peculiarly dishonesty and idiocy go hand in hand. you seem perhaps not to be aware that the germans saw themselves as the master race. they didnt want everyone to speak german. as for your apparent inability to say what you mean and merely allude to it - i think you ought to take a course in straight talking. if you choose to speak in riddles then its no surprise that itll likely be misconstrued. graham .

From : bill putney

pooh bear wrote bill putney wrote pooh bear wrote tbone wrote and yet we managed to prevent all of europe from speaking german lol! you do talk some astonishing drivel. graham wow - you really dont remember the hitler thing do you. thats incredible. hitler never attempted to make german the only language in europe. graham yeah - i can see him in a staff meeting saying in the late 30s we are going to delay the war. our very first step will be to get everyone in europe speaking german - well simply ask everyone to comply with that request and they will do so gladly. then once that is accomplished we will take our army and start the war to defeat everyone. but not until we first have tehm all speaking german. you are quite the idiot. and dishonest too pretending like you didnt know what was meant by ...we managed to prevent all of europe from speaking german. but i find that peculiarly dishonesty and idiocy go hand in hand. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : theguy

on tue 31 jan 2006 233934 -0000 alan lehun try@reply.to wrote @preciscom says... hey if it makes you feel more comfortable to have the government make all your decisions then so be it but i prefer to make my own choices and prefer to live where i can do so legally. actually in my visits to the states i have found an oppression that is simply not seen in europe. it comes not from the government but from the people themselves and the media. criticise democracy or the american dream or anything that culturally identifies america and you face being completely ostracised by your peers. americans just dont seem able or willing to criticise themselves to any significant degree. what fucking part of america did you visit from what you just wrote i think that you must have stopped overnight at the greyhound depot in butte montana and read the readers digest. get a grip pal. how wrong can you possibly be of course on this side of the pond we sometimes appear to actively encourage it which doesnt seem too smart to me either. .

From : max dodge

it is noteworthy that you have changed from comparing passenger carrying vehicles to heavy freight. you should note that i dont disagree with you that trains are efficient freight carriers as long as they load at the production point and unload at the processing point and the distance is long. it is further noteworthy that if passenger rail were used as extensively as it could be the terminals would be as you suggest in residential work shopping and entertainment centers. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max dodge wrote http//www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/rr/261.pdf this document suggests that freight rail can move at up to 400 ton-miles per gallon. trucks and autos will never touch that level. ships will do much better. i stated somewhere that there were instances where trains were obviously more efficient and indeed they are used in those applications because that is what they are good for. carrying bulk products like coal and ore from production point to end point. http//www.atlintracoastal.org/wwfacts.htm about halfway down this page youll find a table noting emmissions from various freight hauling methods. notable is the fact that trucks are a distant third to trains and waterway transit. it is noteworthy that you have changed from comparing passenger carrying vehicles to heavy freight. you should note that i dont disagree with you that trains are efficient freight carriers as long as they load at the production point and unload at the processing point and the distance is long. huw .

From : theguy

on wed 01 feb 2006 010612 +0000 pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote tbone wrote hitler never attempted to make german the only language in europe. how do you know the germans considered themselves superior to most other races or nationalities. they simply didnt want the scum to be able to talk understand their language. graham geez. you still didnt answer his question pooh baby. how do you know this i mean did you read it in the comics man you are an incredibly boring example of english bs. i mean what a great example of arrogance and idiocy all rolled into one. i appreciate your joining the discussion. i was starting to worry about america. i now see that we are in pretty good shape. after all we dont have you! thank you so very much. .

From : tbone

theguy wrote on tue 31 jan 2006 010844 +0000 pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote tbone wrote and yet we managed to prevent all of europe from speaking german lol! you do talk some astonishing drivel. graham well we should listen to you on this one graham. i mean you seem to be an expert on drivel. are you and tbone both uneducated beer swilling trailer trash who reckon *america rules* you sure sound like it. i suppose you reckon you can win an argument with a gun too ! even if we were exactly that the fact is america does rule. like others have said if we closed our borders the rest of you would die like it or not. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : alan lehun

theguy@notebook.com says... what fucking part of america did you visit on my last visit the gulf states texas louisiana & mississippi. from what you just wrote i think that you must have stopped overnight at the greyhound depot in butte montana and read the readers digest. get a grip pal. how wrong can you possibly be i cant be wrong. it was an inference that i perceived. i also speak relatively of course from a country that allows people to come over here milk our social security system and preach to others of the complete destruction of our way of life. something i just cant imagine happening over there. -- alan lehun .

From : pooh bear

theguy wrote on wed 01 feb 2006 010612 +0000 pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote tbone wrote hitler never attempted to make german the only language in europe. how do you know the germans considered themselves superior to most other races or nationalities. they simply didnt want the scum to be able to talk understand their language. graham geez. you still didnt answer his question pooh baby. how do you know this i mean did you read it in the comics man you are an incredibly boring example of english bs. i mean what a great example of arrogance and idiocy all rolled into one. i appreciate your joining the discussion. i was starting to worry about america. i now see that we are in pretty good shape. after all we dont have you! thank you so very much. nazi propaganda had convinced the men in the army to view the russians as a conglomeration of animals. http//www.loyno.edu/history/journal/1989-0/fleming.htm graham .

From : theguy

on wed 1 feb 2006 011858 -0000 alan lehun try@reply.to wrote theguy@notebook.com says... what fucking part of america did you visit on my last visit the gulf states texas louisiana & mississippi. from what you just wrote i think that you must have stopped overnight at the greyhound depot in butte montana and read the readers digest. get a grip pal. how wrong can you possibly be i cant be wrong. it was an inference that i perceived. i also speak relatively of course from a country that allows people to come over here milk our social security system and preach to others of the complete destruction of our way of life. something i just cant imagine happening over there. lol. good response. honestly i think you may have misjudged america. having lived here for many many years we certainly have our faults and weaknesses but never the less i think that you may have gotten a wrong impression. .

From : pooh bear

alan lehun wrote rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com says... you seem perhaps not to be aware that the germans saw themselves as the master race. not strictly true. they saw the aryan race as being the master race of which the germans amongst others were descended. youre quite right of course. those aryans had some interesting ideas about the untermenschen. graham .

From : tbone

on tue 31 jan 2006 232351 +0000 pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote tbone wrote even if we were exactly that the fact is america does rule. like others have said if we closed our borders the rest of you would die like it or not. die of laughter perhaps ! oh come on now pooh bear. dont get our hopes up. you will be getting the bill for cleaning the coffee out of my keyboard lol ;- -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : max dodge

you have lost the passenger arguement and are attempting to change the topic to freight. good you just carry on. false. you lost the argument when you claimed to have plonked me. passenger rail and freight rail are on the same level of efficiency. your difficulty is in seeing that both need to have well planned routes and stations not just freight. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max dodge wrote your lack of understanding if repeated in corporate circles explains a lot about how gm and ford got where they are. if the train were efficient it would be utilised to a greater extent than is now the case. ergo it is not efficient therefore it is not utilised. wrong plonkmeister. you are still confusing cost effective with energy efficient. it cost less to ship by truck but a train is still more energy efficient. you have lost the passenger arguement and are attempting to change the topic to freight. good you just carry on. huw .

From : tbone

tbone wrote tbone wrote ...as far as ford and gm go they did dig their own hole by stuffing their heads as far up their collective asses as they possibly could... would it not be more correct to say ...their collective ass... im thinking a collective anything is singular. not at all. i was referring to the collective ass of the managers running each company. two companies two collective asses but thanks for caring. ahh - kind of like saying two clusters of grapes. exactly. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : dtj

on sat 25 feb 2006 011228 gmt st. john smythe sinjen@n4vu.com wrote wolfpuppy wrote never precise and everything comes out fine. yeah right. if you two would agree to knock off the bickering i would be happy to explain how you both could be right on that particular point. dont need to explain it to me i know why he cant bake. ************************* dave .

From : bill putney

pooh bear wrote bill putney wrote pooh bear wrote hitler never attempted to make german the only language in europe. graham yeah - i can see him in a staff meeting saying in the late 30s we are going to delay the war. our very first step will be to get everyone in europe speaking german - well simply ask everyone to comply with that request and they will do so gladly. then once that is accomplished we will take our army and start the war to defeat everyone. but not until we first have tehm all speaking german. you are quite the idiot. and dishonest too pretending like you didnt know what was meant by ...we managed to prevent all of europe from speaking german. but i find that peculiarly dishonesty and idiocy go hand in hand. you seem perhaps not to be aware that the germans saw themselves as the master race. they didnt want everyone to speak german. as for your apparent inability to say what you mean and merely allude to it - i think you ought to take a course in straight talking. if you choose to speak in riddles then its no surprise that itll likely be misconstrued. graham you have me confused with t-bone - hes the one that said ...we managed to prevent all of europe from speaking german. i was saying that you were being stupid and dishonest to pretend that you did not understand what t-bone meant by that. do you have to have everything spelled out explicitly to understand it. here it is in plain english had it not been for us germany would have conquered the world. to say that europe would be speaking german was a figure of speech - and one that even a moron would be able to understand. i guess figures of speech should never be allowed because according to you is talking in riddles besides teh fact that again it wasnt me who made the original statement though it was a valid statement. like i said dishonesty and stupidity often go hand in hand. is that straight talk enough for you bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : bill putney

pooh bear wrote alan lehun wrote @preciscom says... hey if it makes you feel more comfortable to have the government make all your decisions then so be it but i prefer to make my own choices and prefer to live where i can do so legally. actually in my visits to the states i have found an oppression that is simply not seen in europe. it comes not from the government but from the people themselves and the media. criticise democracy or the american dream or anything that culturally identifies america and you face being completely ostracised by your peers. americans just dont seem able or willing to criticise themselves to any significant degree. of course on this side of the pond we sometimes appear to actively encourage it which doesnt seem too smart to me either. constructive criticism is no bad thing though. i concur with your view though. it seems as if any mere hint that one might think america isnt *perfect* results in a hostile over-reaction from the colonists. yet the yanks seem to think its their place to criticise everyone else ! a style of reaction to criticism that has much in common with islamists in fact ! graham i smell a troll. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : dtj

on mon 30 jan 2006 192152 -0500 bill putney bptn@kinez.net wrote scott en aztln wrote go to your bookshelf and open up any book. is it written from top to bottom or bottom to top now take down another book - same thing take down a few more - my god are they all like that i dont care either way but that is certainly a poor argument. it would be a great argument if we were talking about reading books - but were not. the only thing a group has in common with books is that they both contain words and ideas. beyond that the similarity stops. it is not a poor argument. you still read top down and left to right. the fact is that logic flows in a logical direction not from point to point. when people top post 99% of the time nobody has any clue what they are replying to as the point they are addressing could be anywhere in the op. ************************* dave .

From : dtj

on tue 31 jan 2006 012553 gmt tom lawrence tnloaswpraemnmcien5g@earthlink.net wrote unsnipped post below. nobody does this so after a while top posters are only replying to each other because all intelligent posters plonk them within a few posts. okay... i dont personally do it because i also like to edit out irrelevant parts. i just dont get my nuts in a vise over it and predict the downfall of human civilization when someone puts their comments at the top. neither do inline or bottom posters unless a whole group of script kiddies gets lost and starts posting in groups they have no business in. ************************* dave .

From : dtj

on mon 30 jan 2006 223514 -0500 rachel easson rske@sympatico.ca wrote 1/4-1/2 ton pickups in town regularly move people carry construction supplies are used for small businesses and often have better mileage than cars. name one 1/2 ton pu that gets better mileage than the average car. explain how any 1/2 ton regularly moves more people. pus full of illegal aliens not included. ************************* dave .

From : dtj

on tue 31 jan 2006 093531 -0500 rachel easson rske@sympatico.ca wrote i was explaining that 1/2 ton truck owners here use their trucks to work. and most of us need an 8 box maybe in your town but the overwhelming majority of truck owners do not utilize them 90% of the time. excepting the asshole trolls like lbmhb most people have no issue with tradesmen using trucks. ************************* dave .

From : max dodge

criticize all you like most of us do! thats why we cant understand how you found thta pov. obviously in suggesting that we need an energy policy and to put more money into public transit is not exactly a popular view in this country. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author alan lehun wrote @preciscom says... hey if it makes you feel more comfortable to have the government make all your decisions then so be it but i prefer to make my own choices and prefer to live where i can do so legally. actually in my visits to the states i have found an oppression that is simply not seen in europe. it comes not from the government but from the people themselves and the media. criticise democracy or the american dream or anything that culturally identifies america and you face being completely ostracised by your peers. americans just dont seem able or willing to criticise themselves to any significant degree. of course on this side of the pond we sometimes appear to actively encourage it which doesnt seem too smart to me either. constructive criticism is no bad thing though. i concur with your view though. it seems as if any mere hint that one might think america isnt *perfect* results in a hostile over-reaction from the colonists. yet the yanks seem to think its their place to criticise everyone else ! a style of reaction to criticism that has much in common with islamists in fact ! graham .

From : max dodge

parts dont go quite as fast nor do they get here at no cost. hence the fact that they cost more once here. it has been supposed that the difference is only a dollar or two but in a capitalist economy the seller can sell at the price of his choice so long as he is the lowest price only and a demand exists. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author i have followed your ping-pong with pooh bear but i am not clear about the relevance of an atlantic crossing. last time i did it it took no more than 7 h. and it took only 11 h to cross that ocean and even cross the american continent to get to la. it even takes up to an hour less going the other way. das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- ... it is a mechanical entity as such it will break and it will need repair. if it were here parts for it would cross the atlantic ocean. you might be more familiar with it if you looked west a bit farther than your nose. ... .

From : clare at snyder on ca

on mon 30 jan 2006 074042 -0800 scott en aztln scottenaztlan@yahoonospam.com wrote on sun 29 jan 2006 153124 -0500 roy roy@home.net wrote i guess that some are all consumed about what are supposed rules and guidelines. or perhaps they touch themselves too much. screwem. when i read a post by a top-poster i automatically plonk them. in general they are arrogant jerks who have nothing to say thats worth reading; the vitriolic blurb quoted above is a perfect example. talk about arrogant jerks ------ .

From : pooh bear

max dodge wrote criticize all you like most of us do! thats why we cant understand how you found thta pov. obviously in suggesting that we need an energy policy.......... is not exactly a popular view in this country. i take it you didnt watch the state of the union speech before posting that idiotic comment then not popular to have a policy ! lmao your leader seems to have one ! dubya says the usa has to get away from its oil dependency. i guess cheney was seething at that point ! ;- graham .

From : clare at snyder on ca

on 30 jan 2006 073940 -0800 budd cochran mr-d150@preciscom.net wrote because he suffers from the i-wanna-be-the-moderator syndrome. sure usenet rules suggest bottom posting but then those rules have never been brought up to modern internet standards. way back when bottom posting was fine because modem speeds limiting the size of threads . . it took much longer to post a huge reply so you kept things brief. now with cable dsl for example top posting makes sense so you get to the reply much faster. of course the other usenet rules rarely gets used the one about trimming posts as topics evolve. budd or changing the subject of the thread. oh right - its still on topic. the mercedes is built in the same way as the majority of these posts tom lawrence wrote top-posted and un-trimmed mr. bude. can some one explain to me why people have such a bug up their butt about top-posting i find it much more convenient when reading through a thread... .

From : max dodge

what you dont appear to accept is the premise that there is a role for rail but only one limited to certain circumstances. false. rail can be part of a well designed freight distribution system on almost any level. have you missed the tofc service container service and other intermodal types that are part of the new wave of rail use have you missed the express service offered by almost every railroad in the states did you realize that many railroads are experiencing a growth cycle unheard of in industry for over a decade if everything from ups packages to bulk commodities to passengers can be moved by rail the only limit is how many trains will fit on each route. it is not a panacea. if it were then all the lines that have been closed would not have been. false. lines were closed because rail networks were triple and quadruple redundant in some places. in others businesses closed or moved. when trucking was deregulated in the 70s railroads were strangled by the continued regulation from the government. since then the regulation has been removed and rail usage is increasing at a rate beyond that which was expected. britain germany did you research why all the convenient factory railheads were closed i have no idea what you are talking about in those countries. im speaking about rail use in the states not europe. whether or not railheads were closed has nothing to do with the efficiency of rail transport compared to highway transport. thus your question is irrelevant since it is not a cause of rail efficiency nor a detracter thereof. you talk about energy efficiency but the approach you have used does not appear to take on board the real world and we are back to my example of freight from butte to rochester which i do not think you have yet addressed. freight from butte to rochester is easily done. if you require a rate i suggest you contact bnsf or union pacific in the butte area and norfolk southern or csx corporation in the rochester area. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author what you dont appear to accept is the premise that there is a role for rail but only one limited to certain circumstances. it is not a panacea. if it were then all the lines that have been closed would not have been. britain germany did you research why all the convenient factory railheads were closed you talk about energy efficiency but the approach you have used does not appear to take on board the real world and we are back to my example of freight from butte to rochester which i do not think you have yet addressed. das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- ... the only difficult thing here is opening ones mind to see possibilitites rather than assumptions. -- max ... .

From : max dodge

not popular to have a policy ! lmao your leader seems to have one ! dubya says the usa has to get away from its oil dependency. i guess cheney was seething at that point ! ;- youll have to stand by while i laugh hysterically at gwbs hydrogen induced euphoria that he likes to call a policy. gwbs policy is based on the fact that petrol ng and diesel are of such a price that capitalist enterprise will open up new markets of energy. while its true that it will happen its not a proactive policy if one simply stands back and allows something to happen without solving the problem. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max dodge wrote criticize all you like most of us do! thats why we cant understand how you found thta pov. obviously in suggesting that we need an energy policy.......... is not exactly a popular view in this country. i take it you didnt watch the state of the union speech before posting that idiotic comment then not popular to have a policy ! lmao your leader seems to have one ! dubya says the usa has to get away from its oil dependency. i guess cheney was seething at that point ! ;- graham .

From : clare at snyder on ca

on mon 30 jan 2006 044740 gmt max dodge max340@verizon.net wrote curious then that where cars do take a real pouding such as in india the locally made padmini is a fiat dericative and in many middle eastern and african countries that peugeots stand up well to the task. perhaps you think that is a real pounding but reality tells me that use in the states can be very harsh to a car that isnt designed here in the states. like it or not each region has its own design characteristics. stuff designed outside the states tends to be less than up to the task here in the states. i hate to say it but americans in general tend to be heavier than other humans. thus cars take more abuse. part of that is because we drive longer distances as we dont have the rail system nor the same lifestyle as europe or the middle east. another factor in those distances is the fact that we dont have restrictive borders as frequently as other regions do thus we drive farther more frequently. add to this that our fuel has traditionally been cheaper and you have yet another reason we drive a lot. i have yet to see a pick up truck from japan deal with the loads we dump on our pickups. this decade may see that opinion change in the half ton market. you want to really abuse a car take a little car like a 1967 204 peugot wagon put 4 full sized adults in it 2 big men one scrawny limey runt and a 58 young lady and 1000 lbs of suppliesas well as 2 jerry cans of gasoline strapped to the roof then chase it from the southern tip of zambialivingstone/victoria falls to the northern tip mbereshi - almost the kenyan border in the middle of the rainy season. the great north road wasnt bad in the seventies but from the copperbelt up through the pedicle of zaire and the rest of the way into luapula province the roads were very poor gravel with lots of washouts. you either drove under 30mph or over 60 and we didnt have 2 weeks to do the trip so it was hit one bump and fly over the next 6 or 8. every couple hours it was time to get out the hammer and pound the rims back into shape. thats what michelin air-stops are made for - tubeless would not have lasted 10 miles. we did the trip in 3 days each direction. one drive axle seized solid in my driveway when i got back to livingstone. or try rallying. the 1972 renault r12 took an awful beating for 3 seasons - and it was a non-prepared car. totally stock no re-enforcements whatsoever and it never broke on a rally. we chased that poor car all over ontario from windsor to tamagami to peterborough every weekend from may to labour day. that said for long distance trans-continental american / canadian cruising theres nothing like big american iron like a 53 hemi coronet or a 73 ambassador wagon or even a 69 dart.or an aerostar or pontiac transsport. but no way would i take any of those from livingstone to luapula in the rainy season or rally them. you also have to see a burkina bush taxi to believe what you can do with a 35 year old peugot 404 wagon.i was in burkina faso in 01. stuff piled 8 feet high on the roof with 6 people inside and driving into a village 3km past the end of the road over roads i crawled over at about 5mph with the toyota pradaland cruiser 90 or the mitsubishi 4x4 and was very carefull running with the elsinore. they made it in and did not leave any parts behind. and they made it back out again. i would not attempt those roads with any american passenger car. then again i wouldnt drive that old peugot from kitchener to toronto on the 401 - it would be pulled off the road by the first cop to lay eyes on it.if it could be held on the road at all. different ponys for different tracks as they say. not to say one is better than the other but they sure are as different as a welsh coal pony and a clydesdale or arabian. .

From : jerry

ed pirrero wrote budd cochran wrote england was saved from invasion by the battle of britain in which the us played not one single jot. really what about all the equipment the us supplied the british forces like the mustang fighter plane the p-51 did not make it over in any real numbers until 1943. battle of britain was summer 1940. it was almost exclusively a brit on german air war. in fact it was a near thing. without radar and very high aircraft factory output britain would probably been invaded and most likely would have been completely overrun in a few weeks. we owe our successes in ww2 to those few who stood off the german air assault in 1940. so budd stop showing your ass and learn some history. e.p. ed now you stop that. posting facts will just confuse the issue. .

From : dtj

on tue 31 jan 2006 132156 -0500 clare at snyder.on.ca wrote on sun 29 jan 2006 151620 -0600 dtj none@nowhere.com wrote on sun 29 jan 2006 185409 -0000 huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote the most densly populated nations tend to be the most prosperous and china cite every country which is more densely populated than the us has a far lower standard of living. has the potential of being more prosperous than the usa. i think you will potential they have the potential to get their asses kicked if they keep supporting terrorists. ************************* dave boy - someone needs to go to haiti or burkina faso. quite densely populated compared to the usa canada europe or even south africa and 2 of the 5 poorest countries in the world. either you need to learn how to post or you have no clue about how poor haiti really is. ************************* dave .

From : dtj

on tue 31 jan 2006 233934 -0000 alan lehun try@reply.to wrote actually in my visits to the states i have found an oppression that is simply not seen in europe. it comes not from the government but from the people themselves and the media. criticise democracy or the american dream or anything that culturally identifies america and you face being completely ostracised by your peers. americans just dont seem able or willing to criticise themselves to any significant degree. no we are able but we dont care for those uncouth individuals of europe doing so in jealousy. debate about an issue is fine but the comments from a lot of europeons today is unbecoming. ************************* dave .

From : clare at snyder on ca

on mon 30 jan 2006 101024 -0000 huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote part of that is because we drive longer distances as we dont have the rail system nor the same lifestyle as europe or the middle east. so you are saying now that it is easier on the car in the states. certainly long distances are infinitely easier than the narrow twisty lanes we have in europe although our freeways generally have average speeds of 80mph or so. can you drive at that speed for say 14 hours without stopping in limey land or anywhere else in europe get on the interstate on the east coast and drive to the pacific coast in 4 days or less with 2 drivers. then turn around and drive back with no repairs. or drive from northern ontario to key west florida without stopping except for gas food and washroom breaks and virtually never be under 65 mph i remember driving from kitchener ontario to murray river pei in 18 hours non-stop in a 53 dodge.that included the ferry crossing at tormentine. do the math. there was no loafing. yes some euro cars will do it - and in some you may even be relatively comfortable.the old rover 2000tc comes to mind. a 2.5 mondeo would fit the bill too if there were only 2 adults. but take a big american chevy and wind it through the hedge-rows of old limey ---- not a chance. differnt ponies for different tracks. another factor in those distances is the fact that we dont have restrictive borders as frequently as other regions do thus we drive farther more frequently. still easier on a car. in africa half the distances would be on unmetalled roads and similarly in india and pakistan. have you watched the and seen what driving conditions are like there yup - ive driven those roads. add to this that our fuel has traditionally been cheaper and you have yet another reason we drive a lot. i fail to see how driving a lot is relevant except that you do fewer cold starts per mile. 200000 miles is the same distance wherever you are. but 200000 miles can easily be put on a car in 3 years in parts of canada and the usa. i have yet to see a pick up truck from japan deal with the loads we dump on our pickups. this decade may see that opinion change in the half ton market. the heavy half hilux and the toyota one ton pickups in the eighties easily handled 2-3 tons and lasted better than the chevy pickups of the same period.my dad used both in his contracting business and the toyota didnt take a back seat to chevy or ford at the time. and we didnt get the stout or the dyna. what they would handle with a puny little 4 cyl engine was unbelievable. the l series and b series diesels particularly the turbo l were almost unstoppable and even the 3r 5r 6r 8r and 20r gas engines lasted incredibly well. half ton eh i dont think there are many pick-ups sold in europe with a payload of less than a ton but there you go. most of your pick-ups seem to carry not a lot more than fishing tackle. untill we load 2 face cords of hardwood on em. then you se em squat!! huw .

From : max dodge

what you dont appear to accept is the premise that there is a role for rail but only one limited to certain circumstances. false. rail can be part of a well designed freight distribution system on almost any level. have you missed the tofc service container service and other intermodal types that are part of the new wave of rail use have you missed the express service offered by almost every railroad in the states did you realize that many railroads are experiencing a growth cycle unheard of in industry for over a decade if everything from ups packages to bulk commodities to passengers can be moved by rail the only limit is how many trains will fit on each route. it is not a panacea. if it were then all the lines that have been closed would not have been. false. lines were closed because rail networks were triple and quadruple redundant in some places. in others businesses closed or moved. when trucking was deregulated in the 70s railroads were strangled by the continued regulation from the government. since then the regulation has been removed and rail usage is increasing at a rate beyond that which was expected. britain germany did you research why all the convenient factory railheads were closed i have no idea what you are talking about in those countries. im speaking about rail use in the states not europe. whether or not railheads were closed has nothing to do with the efficiency of rail transport compared to highway transport. thus your question is irrelevant since it is not a cause of rail efficiency nor a detracter thereof. you talk about energy efficiency but the approach you have used does not appear to take on board the real world and we are back to my example of freight from butte to rochester which i do not think you have yet addressed. freight from butte to rochester is easily done. if you require a rate i suggest you contact bnsf or union pacific in the butte area and norfolk southern or csx corporation in the rochester area. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author what you dont appear to accept is the premise that there is a role for rail but only one limited to certain circumstances. it is not a panacea. if it were then all the lines that have been closed would not have been. britain germany did you research why all the convenient factory railheads were closed you talk about energy efficiency but the approach you have used does not appear to take on board the real world and we are back to my example of freight from butte to rochester which i do not think you have yet addressed. das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- ... the only difficult thing here is opening ones mind to see possibilitites rather than assumptions. -- max ... .

From : clare at snyder on ca

on mon 30 jan 2006 223937 gmt max dodge max340@verizon.net wrote i dont think there are many pickups sold in europe but feel free to cite proven statistics. in the states a pickup isnt built above the one ton level. ill bet its the same in europe. what is an f450 super duty rated at max you can take one off the dealers lot with a pickup box factory installed. the difference in europe is there are very few pickups comparatively and they tend to be 1/4 ton vannettes for the gentleman farmer or medium duty commercial vehicles for use by tradesmen or for commercial cartage. aussie sees more utes of the 1/2 ton variety. africa sees mostly the little 1/4 tonners and 1/2 - 1 ton asian pickups like nissan hardbodies totota hilux mitsubishi raiders etc and the 1 ton and up dynas etc which are really more like our medium duty trucks gm forwards fusos etc as well as a host of medium duty euro lorries in the 5-10 ton range. and a whole lot of ancient euro heavies - man. dubrava leyland mercedes and a host of other french eastern block chinese german and british museum pieces.or 4x4s. and some of the old heavies are all wheel drive too. .

From : clare at snyder on ca

on tue 31 jan 2006 210216 -0600 dtj none@nowhere.com wrote on mon 30 jan 2006 223514 -0500 rachel easson rske@sympatico.ca wrote 1/4-1/2 ton pickups in town regularly move people carry construction supplies are used for small businesses and often have better mileage than cars. name one 1/2 ton pu that gets better mileage than the average car. explain how any 1/2 ton regularly moves more people. pus full of illegal aliens not included. ************************* dave ever see a dodge megacab pickup truck with a bigger cab than most large sedans. 2 door pickups are becoming the minority over here. an f150 with a cap or toneau gets as good mileage if not better on the highway than a ford taurus. .

From : clare at snyder on ca

on 30 jan 2006 114442 -0800 thom thomcasey@gmail.com wrote actually the reason the us is so tough on cars is the fact that most people do not take care of their cars. they expect them to work all the time no matter how deficient their maintenance upkeep. and the surprising thing is they generally do. unlike many euro cars that can not be ignored and some that just keep on going like the energizer bunny i have lived in and maintained cars in arizona mississippi texas wisconsin and indiana. so they have seen oppressive heat humidity rain snow cold ice etc... none have let me down ford us and korean chevy us and japanese mercedes. if all of us americans took care of our cars like folks in europe the automotive industry would be in much better shape here. or really on the rocks. a new car every 15 years would not keep the factories going at capacity. also to bob i have been overseas and american drivers cause many more problems on their roads then do they on ours. i can only imagine what they say about american caucasians in the east when we try to drive in tokyo especially if we bring our big poorly maintained us cars there. .

From : dori a schmetterling

for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- daniel j. stern wrote on sat 4 feb 2006 huw wrote usenet is full of people that will argue anything. is not! is too! is not times infinity! is too times infinity and *beyond* huw you forgot no returns and white rabbits das .

From : pooh bear

arif khokar wrote theguy wrote well thanks for letting me know i missed one for the killfile. theguy is a truly class act piece of trash. graham .

From : pooh bear

daniel j. stern wrote on sat 4 feb 2006 hernando correa wrote usenet is full of people that will argue anything. is not! is too! is not times infinity! is too times infinity and *beyond* is too triple dare and *beyond* you keep out of this nazi! http//www.reference.com/browse/wiki/godwinslaw graham .

From : daniel j stern

on sat 4 feb 2006 huw wrote usenet is full of people that will argue anything. is not! is too! is not times infinity! .

From : clare at snyder on ca

on mon 30 jan 2006 233527 -0000 huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote max dodge wrote perhaps you think that is a real pounding but reality tells me that use in the states can be very harsh to a car that isnt designed here in the states. lol. yes you find it funny i find it sad. in general an asian designed vehicle will last maybe five years without major needs. used to be that inside of three years an asian made vehicle would rust badly which is to say holes through the metal. perhaps now that they are built here that is solved. that is at variance to what i hear on the mainly right wing american posters on alt.autos.toyota where there is only one decenting voice to the overwhelming majority who believe both toyota and honda are leagues ahead in reliability and longevity compared with domestic cars. rust has been a thing of the past on japanese built vehicles that have been imported here in the last 15 years. there was a time in the 1970s that they developed bodywork holes you could put your fist through within five years. that is historical and not representative of recent products. remember the fords of the same vintage a friends 3 year old montego had the seat mounts rust/pull right out of the floor in 3 years. and torinos that the mirrors fell off complete with a large patch of metal in 2 years or the door handles fell out and there was nothing left to fasten them to and pintos that rusted through the firewall where the inner fenders fastened wasnt just the japs and brits and fiats that rusted away in no time back then.but they did seem to rust faster for a longer period of time. they were not designed to handle the salt on the roads in middle america i do like american iron in many ways but dollar for dollar ill take a toyota or a honda over most of what america has to offer today.and most of them will be built closer to my home than most of the socalled american models. if i want a big car id buy a dc product made in brampton. or possibly a crown vic from tilbury. if i want a small car a corolla from cambridge or a honda from alliston. for a small sport ute id consider the new mostly suzuki based stuff coming out of cami down at ingersol with the gm badge or the matrix from cambridge. but right now im not in the market - the mercury mistake clone of the mondeo only has a bit over 100000km on it at 10 years of age and will likely last the wife another 5 years - and it doesnt get much long highway driving. the 12 year old trans sport has 333000 plus km on it and will likely do me for another few years too unless a deal comes up that is too good to pass up. regardless my next car will be another used one - whatever seams to stand up reasonably well and is cheap. european vehicles fare a bit better but by seven years can become cantankerous if not costly to maintain due to nickel and dime stuff that costs ten times as much because its euro design. mass sellers always have cheaper parts. if european cars sold in enough numbers the parts prices would reduce in the same way that seldom needed japanese parts have. i am aware that huge american vehicles have a very low payload in relation to their size and weight compared to european vehicles but that is only a symptom of poor design by the big american manufacturers. could it be that some of their problems and decreasing market share is related to poor and profligate design toyota is going to overtake gm this year in volume terms. in profitability it has overtaken gm long ago and customer retention is very high which is a prerecuisite of increasing sales. no long distances are not easier. quite the opposite they create another type of hazard to longevity that of heat and wear. you are ignorant of wear factors affecting automobiles. a car reaches its operating temperature and wear is minimised. but bigger engines not worked as hard tend not to overheat as easily. a lot of the smaller american and european engines do suffer from heat on long hard runs. even some of the jap stuff has problems with coking and sticking rings as well as lubrication breakdown running that thin 5w20 oil. lots of head gasket and intake manifold problems even on some american engines due to heat and poor design with the world market lots of our american engines are euro asian south american or aussi in design. and lots of our american small cars are asian designed and even asian built daewoo is gm in korea - and sold here with a bow tie lots of these problems show up here while the cars are the model of reliability in europe and elsewhere. our conditions can be severe. they are different than most of the rest of the world. get over it. thus our larger engines tend to do better than the smaller engines from elsewhere. tell that to the owners of toyota and all the other japanese vehicles who consistently lead reliability and longevity ratings all over the wo

From : clare at snyder on ca

on tue 31 jan 2006 033621 gmt max dodge max340@verizon.net wrote there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max dodge wrote perhaps you think that is a real pounding but reality tells me that use in the states can be very harsh to a car that isnt designed here in the states. lol. yes you find it funny i find it sad. in general an asian designed vehicle will last maybe five years without major needs. you really need to get out ! in asia ppl cant afford to replace cars willy-nilly. id expect some of the cars on indian roads easily to be 20 yrs old. they dont rust that much over there actually. as for the roads - well until youve driven through a few indian pot-holes you havent experienced how bad roads can really be. graham try west african roads - paved roads with potholes big enough for a pig to dissapear into. make that 2 pigs. 2 big pigs or east african roads where you could lose a vw beatle in the rainy season. pensylvania highways are bad but not that bad. .

From : clare at snyder on ca

on tue 31 jan 2006 222347 gmt max dodge max340@verizon.net wrote parts travel both ways. they sure do and when they do the price for them goes up. the point wasnt that the parts had to travel but that shipping them added to their total cost. unlike your examples parts for foreign makes here in the states cost much more not just a dollar or two than similar parts for domestic. not true here in canada. the parts for my gm and ford cost more than the same parts for toyota and honda - and are needed more often. and hyundai parts are even less expensive and they come farther. .

From : clare at snyder on ca

on mon 30 jan 2006 233658 -0000 huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote max dodge wrote and there were we readers of these forums being misled into thinking us cars had their oils changed every 3000 to 5000 miles while we europeans serviced our cars every 10000 to 15000 miles. lol as thom suggested it varies by owner. so if left for 10000 to 15000 miles as is normal in europe they would not survive huw many do. but you dont want to see what oil looks like after a hard run from toronto to calgary and back in the dead of winter 42 hours virtually non-stop --. you would not want to do that 2 or 3 times on a change. not in a mercedes or a vauxhaul or a toyota or a dodge. and the oils are different too. .

From : clare at snyder on ca

on mon 30 jan 2006 224850 gmt max dodge max340@verizon.net wrote i am entertained by the idea that driving conditions in the usa are tougher than in the third world... and that inter-regional variation within the us is so great. oh man you should get out more. yes i know california isnt arizona isnt vermont weatherwise but still. perhaps you should get out more if you feel that the u.s. is all one set of driving conditions. maybe next time you arrive on our shores you should go farther than the local taxi takes you which is to say leave the city behind and forget about the pubs. try the back country of west virginia or the coal country of pensylvania or the hills of new york. try to get through the hills and hollers of outback kentuky or tennesee. try the mountain passes of idaho. or try running across kansas and oklahoma in august. drive through the upper peninsula of michigan or wisconsin or north dakota in the winter.or try death valley. or drive from bakersfield to vegas in august. if you want to really see america do route 66 - end to end.. try out the alcan highway or any of the many other highways in alaska. at any time of the year. or come on up to canada. ill show you roads and driving conditions from the best youll see in europe to as bad as you will find in africa or india and everything in between. yes on the whole african roads are much worse ive driven many miles on them - both main roads and back trails. but the range of roads and conditions in north america covers just about the full range particularly if you include mexico. .

From : clare at snyder on ca

on wed 01 feb 2006 010612 +0000 pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote tbone wrote hitler never attempted to make german the only language in europe. how do you know the germans considered themselves superior to most other races or nationalities. they simply didnt want the scum to be able to talk understand their language. graham they wanted the scum dead. not blonde blue eyed aryans not worth living. so all of europe would be german speeking. .

From : clare at snyder on ca

on mon 30 jan 2006 164314 -0500 rachel easson rske@sympatico.ca wrote youre kidding -- the average assembly line worker is making that people in gm in oshawaon were working one week on one weeks off and having a hard time financially is it because the unions are stronger there rach when they are working 40 hours a week 50 weeks a year and getting 2 weeks paid holidays they are being paid for 2080 hours a year. not too many auto assembly workers make much less than $30 per hour - which is $62400 per year - plus they get pension contributions and paid extended health coverage etc that adds up to several dollars an hour more. also many put in considerable overtime. ive had a health plan for a total of 15 years of my almost 40 working years. no company pensions. no stock options. .

From : ed pirrero

jerry wrote ed pirrero wrote budd cochran wrote england was saved from invasion by the battle of britain in which the us played not one single jot. really what about all the equipment the us supplied the british forces like the mustang fighter plane the p-51 did not make it over in any real numbers until 1943. battle of britain was summer 1940. it was almost exclusively a brit on german air war. in fact it was a near thing. without radar and very high aircraft factory output britain would probably been invaded and most likely would have been completely overrun in a few weeks. we owe our successes in ww2 to those few who stood off the german air assault in 1940. so budd stop showing your ass and learn some history. e.p. ed now you stop that. posting facts will just confuse the issue. i know i know. dont let the facts get in the way of a good story. budd wont have the guts or the maturity to admit hes wrong. just like every other two-bit usenet blowhard. e.p. .

From : pooh bear

clare at snyder.on.ca wrote on wed 01 feb 2006 010612 +0000 pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote tbone wrote hitler never attempted to make german the only language in europe. how do you know the germans considered themselves superior to most other races or nationalities. they simply didnt want the scum to be able to talk understand their language. graham they wanted the scum dead. not blonde blue eyed aryans not worth living. so all of europe would be german speeking. the scum came in useful for slave labour though. graham .

From : huw

clare at snyder.on.ca wrote on mon 30 jan 2006 233658 -0000 huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote max dodge wrote and there were we readers of these forums being misled into thinking us cars had their oils changed every 3000 to 5000 miles while we europeans serviced our cars every 10000 to 15000 miles. lol as thom suggested it varies by owner. so if left for 10000 to 15000 miles as is normal in europe they would not survive huw many do. but you dont want to see what oil looks like after a hard run from toronto to calgary and back in the dead of winter 42 hours virtually non-stop --. the oil would variously be hardly used. only two cold starts and running at operating temperature for long distance. no problem. do you think an engine tires and needs a rest stop no. it is not flesh and blood. you are likely talking of no more than 4500 miles for that journey. you would not want to do that 2 or 3 times on a change. not in a mercedes or a vauxhaul or a toyota or a dodge. i really dont see why not. and the oils are different too. api sl is api sl whether you are in canada or europe or even america. huw .

From : huw

clare at snyder.on.ca wrote remember the fords of the same vintage a friends 3 year old montego had the seat mounts rust/pull right out of the floor in 3 years. and torinos that the mirrors fell off complete with a large patch of metal in 2 years or the door handles fell out and there was nothing left to fasten them to and pintos that rusted through the firewall where the inner fenders fastened wasnt just the japs and brits and fiats that rusted away in no time back then.but they did seem to rust faster for a longer period of time. they were not designed to handle the salt on the roads in middle america huge amounts of salt being spread on british roads as well. i think it was the high price of steel at that time that made it attractive to recycle scrap iron which resulted in poor quality bodies. i hope standards are kept high today as the price of steel over the past twelve months has been just as high historically speaking. i do like american iron in many ways but dollar for dollar ill take a toyota or a honda over most of what america has to offer today.and most of them will be built closer to my home than most of the socalled american models. american models apart from jeep have never sold well in europe. in the uk chrysler is now marketting their rather nice looking 300c and might well sell it well. the specification looks and the drive is good and the availability of the superb v6 diesel engine which na and canada might not get is a big plus point. if i want a big car id buy a dc product made in brampton. or possibly a crown vic from tilbury. if i want a small car a corolla from cambridge or a honda from alliston. for a small sport ute id consider the new mostly suzuki based stuff coming out of cami down at ingersol with the gm badge or the matrix from cambridge. but right now im not in the market - the mercury mistake clone of the mondeo only has a bit over 100000km on it at 10 years of age and will likely last the wife another 5 years - from your email address i thought *you* were the wife. lol no long distances are not easier. quite the opposite they create another type of hazard to longevity that of heat and wear. you are ignorant of wear factors affecting automobiles. a car reaches its operating temperature and wear is minimised. but bigger engines not worked as hard tend not to overheat as easily. a lot of the smaller american and european engines do suffer from heat on long hard runs. surely not in canada. many posters on the toyota and honda group from florida and all over the usa. never heard of an issue with overheating. big engines are just as prone to overheat as it is just a symptom of an inadequate or defective cooling system nothing more. even some of the jap stuff has problems with coking and sticking rings as well as lubrication breakdown running that thin 5w20 oil. lots of head gasket and intake manifold problems even on some american engines due to heat and poor design well there you go. with the world market lots of our american engines are euro asian south american or aussi in design. and lots of our american small cars are asian designed and even asian built daewoo is gm in korea - and sold here with a bow tie they have a lot of heat in those countries. daewoo is now rebranded as chevrolet in most of europe today. lol lots of these problems show up here while the cars are the model of reliability in europe and elsewhere. our conditions can be severe. they are different than most of the rest of the world. my friends in canada have no problem with summer heat but do mention winter cold. here in the uk speeds are generally kept down to 90mph or so because the driving license is lost if speeds exceed 100. and if you drive down the 401 major highway across ontario at less than 130kph you almost get pushed off the road. talk about a universally ignored speed limit. ive personally shot across large expanses of the american mid-west at well over 100mph 160kph and it didnt take an $80000 dollar car to do it. no it doesnt. almost any small family car can cruise indeffinately at over 100mph. heard it all before about various cars trucks plant machinery and everything and it is bollocks. japanese and exotic european cars would not be so successful in america if this were true. fact is the big american barges and smaller cars that just dont drive as well as japanese and european cars are like dinasaurs out of time. this is the reason ford and gm are in such a hole. agreed. yet dc is building big american barges and making money doing it. theres more money to be made from big cars and the consumer is a fickle creature. one minute he wants big cars and bigger suvs then when the inevitable fuel price increase occurs he wants to downsize. the car manufacturers cannot win in that situation unless they mainly target small

From : huw

clare at snyder.on.ca wrote on 30 jan 2006 114442 -0800 thom thomcasey@gmail.com wrote actually the reason the us is so tough on cars is the fact that most people do not take care of their cars. they expect them to work all the time no matter how deficient their maintenance upkeep. and the surprising thing is they generally do. unlike many euro cars that can not be ignored and some that just keep on going like the energizer bunny it is increasingly common to ignore european cars for 15000 to 30000 miles at a time. huw .

From : huw

max dodge wrote what you dont appear to accept is the premise that there is a role for rail but only one limited to certain circumstances. false. rail can be part of a well designed freight distribution system on almost any level. have you missed the tofc service container service and other intermodal types that are part of the new wave of rail use have you missed the express service offered by almost every railroad in the states did you realize that many railroads are experiencing a growth cycle unheard of in industry for over a decade if everything from ups packages to bulk commodities to passengers can be moved by rail the only limit is how many trains will fit on each route. and that is not many. another inefficiency. huw .

From : huw

max dodge wrote it is noteworthy that you have changed from comparing passenger carrying vehicles to heavy freight. you should note that i dont disagree with you that trains are efficient freight carriers as long as they load at the production point and unload at the processing point and the distance is long. it is further noteworthy that if passenger rail were used as extensively as it could be the terminals would be as you suggest in residential work shopping and entertainment centers. as indeed they are in many cities. subway or underground trains are an excellent example of the way trains can and are used to carry passengers efficiently. huw .

From : huw

max dodge wrote if rail is no less expensive that truck haulage for heavy commodities it begs the question why anyone uses it ! in the states this depends on routes and rates of the various companies both rail and truck. if proper planning is put forth rail is more efficient and could be used as a long term solution to an energy shortage. what huw refuses to believe is that not only can frieght and passengers be carried with equal efficiency but that rail can be used effectively in the big picture. somehow all the people who claim rail wont work are set on keeping rail exactly as it is. certainly that wont work long term and the railroads know it. thus they are making changes and investing money to take advantage of their efficiency. they only work efficiently when travelling from city to city and over long distances. even then they struggle to be competitive with cars financially even though here their fuel is a tenth of the price of road fuel and they recieve huge subsidies on top to keep running. all the branch lines that were not remotely economic which served the smaller towns and villages were dismantled in the 1960s. huw the only difficult thing here is opening ones mind to see possibilitites rather than assumptions. huw wrote max dodge wrote your lack of understanding if repeated in corporate circles explains a lot about how gm and ford got where they are. if the train were efficient it would be utilised to a greater extent than is now the case. ergo it is not efficient therefore it is not utilised. wrong plonkmeister. you are still confusing cost effective with energy efficient. it cost less to ship by truck but a train is still more energy efficient. you have lost the passenger arguement and are attempting to change the topic to freight. good you just carry on. i must have missed this one. if rail is no less expensive that truck haulage for heavy commodities it begs the question why anyone uses it ! graham .

From : pooh bear

steve wrote a friend of mine travelled by amtrak last year and told me that they were 20 hours late arriving on the way to their destination but only 18 hours late on the return trip -/ how on earth can you run a railway like that graham .

From : huw

max dodge wrote you have lost the passenger arguement and are attempting to change the topic to freight. good you just carry on. false. you lost the argument when you claimed to have plonked me. your lack of logic is astounding. passenger rail and freight rail are on the same level of efficiency. your difficulty is in seeing that both need to have well planned routes and stations not just freight. these are not flexible. yet another inefficiency. huw .

From : richard sexton

a long distance for me is anything over 300 miles in a day. what is it for you dialing 1 then area code before the number. -- need mercedes parts - http//parts.mbz.org richard sexton | mercedes stuff http//mbz.org 1970 280se 72 280se | home page http//rs79.vrx.net 633csi 250se/c 300sd | http//aquaria.net http//killi.net .

From : steve

clare at snyder.on.ca wrote .. 300 miles a day in decent weather naa thats not a long trip at all. 300 miles is taking it easy and seeing the roadside attractions. we used to run 500 miles/day towing a travel trailer on vacation circa 1975. .

From : huw

clare at snyder.on.ca wrote . 300 miles a day in decent weather naa thats not a long trip at all. 300 miles is taking it easy and seeing the roadside attractions. we used to run 500 miles/day towing a travel trailer on vacation circa 1975. bigger better and further eh. huw .

From : steve

pooh bear wrote when those mustangs did finally arrive they simply didnt perform as well as the british fighters due to the poor allison engine. the allison v-1710 was and is an excellent engine. what the merlin had that the allison never did was a superior mechanical supercharger and aftercooler. credit for that goes to one british engineer- doc hooker who later played a key role in the design of numerous bristol and then rolls-royce turbine engines including teh olympus concorde vulcan and rb.211 tristar 747 757 777 etc. the merlin supercharger is about two times the size physically and far more advanced in turbin/stator design than the allison unit. the allison did fine when its mechanical supercharger was augmented by a turbocharger as in the p-38 lightning. but the availability of turbochargers at the time was very limited. all the b-17s and b-24s had to have them and the p-38 and p-47 were already getting them and production was maxed out. when the mustang came along it was arbitrarily decided that it would not be turbocharged because of the limited availability of turbochargers so it had to limp along with essentially the same powerplant configuration as the much older p-40. the allison actually has a number of design advantages over the merlin when it comes down to strictly the piston engine part of the design. the allison has much stronger connecting rods a stronger crankshaft and a more rigid crankcase. its also got much simpler accessory drives more like the rolls royce griffon than like the merlin which was something of a kludge with drives hanging off all sorts of strange places- some off the supercharger gear case some of the cam drives etc. in recent years the most successful merlins in air racing are actually hybrids built from post-war transport merlin blocks allison connecting rods with custom bearings and -9 merlin superchargers. .

From : tbone

slave labor only works when the slaves understand what you want them to do iow german speaking. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving clare at snyder.on.ca wrote on wed 01 feb 2006 010612 +0000 pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote tbone wrote hitler never attempted to make german the only language in europe. how do you know the germans considered themselves superior to most other races or nationalities. they simply didnt want the scum to be able to talk understand their language. graham they wanted the scum dead. not blonde blue eyed aryans not worth living. so all of europe would be german speeking. the scum came in useful for slave labour though. graham .

From : pooh bear

steve wrote pooh bear wrote when those mustangs did finally arrive they simply didnt perform as well as the british fighters due to the poor allison engine. the allison v-1710 was and is an excellent engine. i should have said poor performance of the allison engine. thanks for your interesting post. graham .

From : pooh bear

tbone wrote slave labor only works when the slaves understand what you want them to do iow german speaking. what makes you think that all nazi slave labourers spoke german graham .

From : tbone

on mon 30 jan 2006 164314 -0500 rachel easson rske@sympatico.ca wrote youre kidding -- the average assembly line worker is making that people in gm in oshawaon were working one week on one weeks off and having a hard time financially is it because the unions are stronger there rach when they are working 40 hours a week 50 weeks a year and getting 2 weeks paid holidays they are being paid for 2080 hours a year. not too many auto assembly workers make much less than $30 per hour - which is $62400 per year - plus they get pension contributions and paid extended health coverage etc that adds up to several dollars an hour more. also many put in considerable overtime. ive had a health plan for a total of 15 years of my almost 40 working years. no company pensions. no stock options. so let me understand this because you got the shaft for most of your working career so should everyone else -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : budd cochran mrd150 preciscom spam net

then you didnt see the core of america where our systems get raked over the coals continually. we criticize ourselves enough we need no help from armchair politicians. btw one right we do have is the right to be offended . . . .by those that decide they know our system better than we do. you dont live here so all your knowledge is from hearsay not experience. budd @preciscom says... hey if it makes you feel more comfortable to have the government make all your decisions then so be it but i prefer to make my own choices and prefer to live where i can do so legally. actually in my visits to the states i have found an oppression that is simply not seen in europe. it comes not from the government but from the people themselves and the media. criticise democracy or the american dream or anything that culturally identifies america and you face being completely ostracised by your peers. americans just dont seem able or willing to criticise themselves to any significant degree. of course on this side of the pond we sometimes appear to actively encourage it which doesnt seem too smart to me either. -- alan lehun .

From : alan lehun

none@nowhere.com says... debate about an issue is fine but the comments from a lot of europeons today is unbecoming. i dont think its confined to europeans. there are dickheads on both sides of the pond. fortunately it usually isnt too difficult to work out who is worth reading and who isnt. -- alan lehun .

From : miles

arif khokar wrote my experience with netscape 4.x was that it would stop working after a few minutes. i ended up using oe until netscape 6 came out. after i found that mozilla releases updates more often than netscape i switched to that. i used netscape 4.x for quite a long time without problems. i now use thunderbird. works great. .

From : daniel j stern

on sat 4 feb 2006 arif khokar wrote ist s. hn aia vpc er i yfm eio tnn ei to o u ts sh ee ene n add nol ne as rts g udb moi e c nik tte .r t i hbn aug tt a ttb oho piu st p opi srt te iaa ncc ghc yo hm a p ssl ai ans ch bte eis nm eon fna iiu tog .uh .

From : hernando correa

huw wrote daniel j. stern wrote on sat 4 feb 2006 huw wrote usenet is full of people that will argue anything. is not! is too! is not times infinity! is too times infinity and *beyond* huw is too triple dare and *beyond* .

From : daniel j stern

on sat 4 feb 2006 hernando correa wrote usenet is full of people that will argue anything. is not! is too! is not times infinity! is too times infinity and *beyond* is too triple dare and *beyond* you keep out of this nazi! .

From : dave hd

there is in quantum physics!!! ;- davehd on sat 4 feb 2006 huw wrote usenet is full of people that will argue anything. is not! is too! is not times infinity! is too times infinity and *beyond* theres no such a thing as beyond infinity. mommmmmm! .

From : theguy

on sat 04 feb 2006 225110 gmt arif khokar akhokar1234@wvu.edu wrote theguy wrote well thanks for letting me know i missed one for the killfile. no problem. .

From : thom

the real question is would the aouto workers in the us be more motivated to produce quality assembly and practices if they knew that poor quality=poor job performance that way they can be like everyone else in the world. work good pay good work bad fired!!!! not to mention i bet us car prices would fall if workers were paid for experience and quality instead of position and tenure. .

From : alan lehun

had it not been for us germany would have conquered the world. were it not for america europe would probably be made up of soviet republics and god knows what would have happened post european war. were it not for america and the battle of britain germany would have had the atomic bomb 18 months before america and the third reich would currently be looking at the new millennia with renewed confidence. were it not for europe america would still be almost entirely populated by indigenous indians. anyone can play this game. -- alan lehun .

From : christopher thompson

the real question is would the aouto workers in the us be more motivated to produce quality assembly and practices if they knew that poor quality=poor job performance that way they can be like everyone else in the world. work good pay good work bad fired!!!! dont think that manufacturing jobs in the us dont work exactly like that. and i speak from experiance ive seen it happen more than once in the plant i work in. granted we are not auto assembly but manufacturing is manufacturing. -chris proud highspeed manufacturing tech not to mention i bet us car prices would fall if workers were paid for experience and quality instead of position and tenure. .

From : theguy

on wed 01 feb 2006 161010 gmt tbone tbonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote on mon 30 jan 2006 164314 -0500 rachel easson rske@sympatico.ca wrote youre kidding -- the average assembly line worker is making that people in gm in oshawaon were working one week on one weeks off and having a hard time financially is it because the unions are stronger there rach when they are working 40 hours a week 50 weeks a year and getting 2 weeks paid holidays they are being paid for 2080 hours a year. not too many auto assembly workers make much less than $30 per hour - which is $62400 per year - plus they get pension contributions and paid extended health coverage etc that adds up to several dollars an hour more. also many put in considerable overtime. ive had a health plan for a total of 15 years of my almost 40 working years. no company pensions. no stock options. so let me understand this because you got the shaft for most of your working career so should everyone else i think you got it right. that seems to be how many too many people feel. .

From : thom

i know they do except automotive industry workers. their world is much different. pretty much an act of god is required to get people to accept personal responsibility and they do not pay for skill and competency./ the workers with the most time in service must die or retire you can get rid of them like gum on your shoe in an arizona summer .

From : clare at snyder on ca

on tue 31 jan 2006 224817 -0600 dtj none@nowhere.com wrote on tue 31 jan 2006 132156 -0500 clare at snyder.on.ca wrote on sun 29 jan 2006 151620 -0600 dtj none@nowhere.com wrote on sun 29 jan 2006 185409 -0000 huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote the most densly populated nations tend to be the most prosperous and china cite every country which is more densely populated than the us has a far lower standard of living. has the potential of being more prosperous than the usa. i think you will potential they have the potential to get their asses kicked if they keep supporting terrorists. ************************* dave boy - someone needs to go to haiti or burkina faso. quite densely populated compared to the usa canada europe or even south africa and 2 of the 5 poorest countries in the world. either you need to learn how to post or you have no clue about how poor haiti really is. ************************* dave pardon i said haiti and burkina are two of the poorest countries in the world. where am i wrong ive been to burkina. i dont need to go to haiti. .

From : clare at snyder on ca

on wed 1 feb 2006 092938 -0000 huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote clare at snyder.on.ca wrote remember the fords of the same vintage a friends 3 year old montego had the seat mounts rust/pull right out of the floor in 3 years. and torinos that the mirrors fell off complete with a large patch of metal in 2 years or the door handles fell out and there was nothing left to fasten them to and pintos that rusted through the firewall where the inner fenders fastened wasnt just the japs and brits and fiats that rusted away in no time back then.but they did seem to rust faster for a longer period of time. they were not designed to handle the salt on the roads in middle america huge amounts of salt being spread on british roads as well. i think it was the high price of steel at that time that made it attractive to recycle scrap iron which resulted in poor quality bodies. i hope standards are kept high today as the price of steel over the past twelve months has been just as high historically speaking. they have finally figured out how to re-smelt steel instead of just heating it up and re-rolling it which from the results appears to be about all they did in the seventies. todays quality steels can contain large proportions of remelted scrap. i do like american iron in many ways but dollar for dollar ill take a toyota or a honda over most of what america has to offer today.and most of them will be built closer to my home than most of the socalled american models. american models apart from jeep have never sold well in europe. in the uk chrysler is now marketting their rather nice looking 300c and might well sell it well. the specification looks and the drive is good and the availability of the superb v6 diesel engine which na and canada might not get is a big plus point. if i want a big car id buy a dc product made in brampton. or possibly a crown vic from tilbury. if i want a small car a corolla from cambridge or a honda from alliston. for a small sport ute id consider the new mostly suzuki based stuff coming out of cami down at ingersol with the gm badge or the matrix from cambridge. but right now im not in the market - the mercury mistake clone of the mondeo only has a bit over 100000km on it at 10 years of age and will likely last the wife another 5 years - from your email address i thought *you* were the wife. lol no long distances are not easier. quite the opposite they create another type of hazard to longevity that of heat and wear. you are ignorant of wear factors affecting automobiles. a car reaches its operating temperature and wear is minimised. but bigger engines not worked as hard tend not to overheat as easily. a lot of the smaller american and european engines do suffer from heat on long hard runs. surely not in canada. many posters on the toyota and honda group from florida and all over the usa. never heard of an issue with overheating. big engines are just as prone to overheat as it is just a symptom of an inadequate or defective cooling system nothing more. even some of the jap stuff has problems with coking and sticking rings as well as lubrication breakdown running that thin 5w20 oil. lots of head gasket and intake manifold problems even on some american engines due to heat and poor design well there you go. with the world market lots of our american engines are euro asian south american or aussi in design. and lots of our american small cars are asian designed and even asian built daewoo is gm in korea - and sold here with a bow tie they have a lot of heat in those countries. daewoo is now rebranded as chevrolet in most of europe today. lol lots of these problems show up here while the cars are the model of reliability in europe and elsewhere. our conditions can be severe. they are different than most of the rest of the world. my friends in canada have no problem with summer heat but do mention winter cold. here in the uk speeds are generally kept down to 90mph or so because the driving license is lost if speeds exceed 100. and if you drive down the 401 major highway across ontario at less than 130kph you almost get pushed off the road. talk about a universally ignored speed limit. ive personally shot across large expanses of the american mid-west at well over 100mph 160kph and it didnt take an $80000 dollar car to do it. no it doesnt. almost any small family car can cruise indeffinately at over 100mph. heard it all before about various cars trucks plant machinery and everything and it is bollocks. japanese and exotic european cars would not be so successful in america if this were true. fact is the big american barges and smaller cars that just dont drive as well as japanese and european cars are like dinasaurs out of time. this is the reason ford and gm are in such a hole. agreed. yet dc is building big american barges

From : clare at snyder on ca

on wed 01 feb 2006 161010 gmt tbone tbonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote on mon 30 jan 2006 164314 -0500 rachel easson rske@sympatico.ca wrote youre kidding -- the average assembly line worker is making that people in gm in oshawaon were working one week on one weeks off and having a hard time financially is it because the unions are stronger there rach when they are working 40 hours a week 50 weeks a year and getting 2 weeks paid holidays they are being paid for 2080 hours a year. not too many auto assembly workers make much less than $30 per hour - which is $62400 per year - plus they get pension contributions and paid extended health coverage etc that adds up to several dollars an hour more. also many put in considerable overtime. ive had a health plan for a total of 15 years of my almost 40 working years. no company pensions. no stock options. so let me understand this because you got the shaft for most of your working career so should everyone else who aid i got the shaft my choice to stop working for idiots. my choice to do without benefits. i had the benefits while the kids were young and now i have some again since my wife has gotten benefits at her work. .

From : clare at snyder on ca

on wed 1 feb 2006 093800 -0000 huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote clare at snyder.on.ca wrote on mon 30 jan 2006 233658 -0000 huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote max dodge wrote and there were we readers of these forums being misled into thinking us cars had their oils changed every 3000 to 5000 miles while we europeans serviced our cars every 10000 to 15000 miles. lol as thom suggested it varies by owner. so if left for 10000 to 15000 miles as is normal in europe they would not survive huw many do. but you dont want to see what oil looks like after a hard run from toronto to calgary and back in the dead of winter 42 hours virtually non-stop --. the oil would variously be hardly used. only two cold starts and running at operating temperature for long distance. no problem. do you think an engine tires and needs a rest stop no. it is not flesh and blood. you are likely talking of no more than 4500 miles for that journey. well i saw the oil when i drained it from that 1969 dart slant six. it had run wide open over 100mph for several hours of that trip. it did stop once for a few hours at -40f to wait for the pass to be blown out. the oil was in a vey grungy condition when drained. worse than i have ever had oil on my vehicles appear in 40 years. you would not want to do that 2 or 3 times on a change. not in a mercedes or a vauxhaul or a toyota or a dodge. i really dont see why not. and the oils are different too. api sl is api sl whether you are in canada or europe or even america. huw get out from under your rock. the oils specified by the european manufacturers for their engines in europe are not the same oil we buy here in north america. particularly when talking the high end models. .

From : huw

daniel j. stern wrote on sat 4 feb 2006 huw wrote usenet is full of people that will argue anything. is not! is too! is not times infinity! is too times infinity and *beyond* huw .

From : daniel j stern

on sat 4 feb 2006 huw wrote usenet is full of people that will argue anything. is not! is too! is not times infinity! is too times infinity and *beyond* theres no such a thing as beyond infinity. mommmmmm! .

From : daniel j stern

on sat 4 feb 2006 dave hd wrote usenet is full of people that will argue anything. is not! is too! is not times infinity! is too times infinity and *beyond* theres no such a thing as beyond infinity. mommmmmm! there is in quantum physics!!! hitler believed in quantum physics. .

From : the spanish inquisition

tom lawrence wrote top-posted and un-trimmed mr. bude. can some one explain to me why people have such a bug up their butt about top-posting i find it much more convenient when reading through a thread... ok serious answer its todo with mixing quotes and replies which can be very effective. --- someone says something. i reply to this statement. somene says something else i reply to this part. --- this way i dont have to quote the whole post but just the sections that im replying to. you can also very easily tell what im replying to. whan someone else continues this thread and quotes in the same way the message is extended and still remains coherent even if you dont read all the previous messages. this is why on usenet this has always been the way to do discussions. that is until the net was flooded with newbies who didnt really care about traditions and wanted to do things like they do in the mail. read the following for a better explanation http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/top-posting mixing top and bottom posting sucks a bit like driving on both sides of the streets so why not stick to the tradition for a change ximinez -- our three weapons are fear surprise and ruthless efficiency... and an almost fanatical devotion to the pope.... http//www.ai.mit.edu/people/paulfitz/spanish/t1.html .

From : the spanish inquisition

bill putney wrote pooh bear wrote do you read books starting at the end too theres a difference when ive been reading thru a book and am on chapter 10 i flip to chapter 10 to start reading again - i dont start all the way back at the beginning but the previous chapters are there to refer back to if needed. not that im for or against top posting but your example works against you. no and thats why its not just top-posting thats annoying but bottom posting and not editing away superfluous material is at least as bad. a badly edited bottom-post-thread can be very annoying to read. so cut away access fat and create a post that is readable be itself. like i tried to make this one. ximinez -- our three weapons are fear surprise and ruthless efficiency... and an almost fanatical devotion to the pope.... http//www.ai.mit.edu/people/paulfitz/spanish/t1.html .

From : the spanish inquisition

theguy wrote on mon 30 jan 2006 180913 -0600 dtj none@nowhere.com wrote on mon 30 jan 2006 035707 gmt tom lawrence tnloaswpraemnmcien5g@earthlink.net wrote can some one explain to me why people have such a bug up their butt about top-posting i find it much more convenient when reading through a thread... do you read books starting at the end too only top posters do. no and i dont read page 1 then page 1-2 then page 1-3 1-4 etc. when reading down through a thread its helpful to ignore all the crap that ive already read... exactly. which is why there are three forms of posting one of which is unacceptable. geez dave. you really are hung up on rules. you are one fucked up up tight guy. no hes right. its a matter of intelligence and efficiency. anyone smart enough to see what works and what doesnt can see why top posting sucks in multi-user discussion threads. hes just not very nice about it but i understand his frustration. ximinez -- our three weapons are fear surprise and ruthless efficiency... and an almost fanatical devotion to the pope.... http//www.ai.mit.edu/people/paulfitz/spanish/t1.html .

From : theguy

on wed 01 feb 2006 224538 +0100 the spanish inquisition ximinez@myown.mailcan.com wrote theguy wrote on mon 30 jan 2006 180913 -0600 dtj none@nowhere.com wrote on mon 30 jan 2006 035707 gmt tom lawrence tnloaswpraemnmcien5g@earthlink.net wrote can some one explain to me why people have such a bug up their butt about top-posting i find it much more convenient when reading through a thread... do you read books starting at the end too only top posters do. no and i dont read page 1 then page 1-2 then page 1-3 1-4 etc. when reading down through a thread its helpful to ignore all the crap that ive already read... exactly. which is why there are three forms of posting one of which is unacceptable. geez dave. you really are hung up on rules. you are one fucked up up tight guy. no hes right. its a matter of intelligence and efficiency. anyone smart enough to see what works and what doesnt can see why top posting sucks in multi-user discussion threads. hes just not very nice about it but i understand his frustration. ximinez yeah. great. another person who worries about process over substance. that will really make things work out better. geez cant you just let it go .

From : richard sexton

having flogged this horse to its constituant atoms is it now time to compare the price of fuel and bitch about that for a month -- need mercedes parts - http//parts.mbz.org richard sexton | mercedes stuff http//mbz.org 1970 280se 72 280se | home page http//rs79.vrx.net 633csi 250se/c 300sd | http//aquaria.net http//killi.net .

From : huw

clare at snyder.on.ca wrote on wed 1 feb 2006 093800 -0000 huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote clare at snyder.on.ca wrote on mon 30 jan 2006 233658 -0000 huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote max dodge wrote and there were we readers of these forums being misled into thinking us cars had their oils changed every 3000 to 5000 miles while we europeans serviced our cars every 10000 to 15000 miles. lol as thom suggested it varies by owner. so if left for 10000 to 15000 miles as is normal in europe they would not survive huw many do. but you dont want to see what oil looks like after a hard run from toronto to calgary and back in the dead of winter 42 hours virtually non-stop --. the oil would variously be hardly used. only two cold starts and running at operating temperature for long distance. no problem. do you think an engine tires and needs a rest stop no. it is not flesh and blood. you are likely talking of no more than 4500 miles for that journey. well i saw the oil when i drained it from that 1969 dart slant six. it had run wide open over 100mph for several hours of that trip. it did stop once for a few hours at -40f to wait for the pass to be blown out. the oil was in a vey grungy condition when drained. worse than i have ever had oil on my vehicles appear in 40 years. things have changed a bit since 1969 though. at least they have over here - you would not want to do that 2 or 3 times on a change. not in a mercedes or a vauxhaul or a toyota or a dodge. i really dont see why not. and the oils are different too. api sl is api sl whether you are in canada or europe or even america. huw get out from under your rock. the oils specified by the european manufacturers for their engines in europe are not the same oil we buy here in north america. particularly when talking the high end models. most manufacturers specify exactly the same oil up to 12000 miles as is the minimum us standard. that is api sl. it is a standard which is current and set by the *american* petroleum institute. for goodness sake back in 1984 i was running uk built cars with 12000 mile/1year oil change intervals on high sulphur fuel and far inferior oil to sl i think it could have been api sf but im not sure. i had a vw golf gti 1.8 back in 1982 which had 10000 mile intervals on the standard of the time. it was still running last i heard which was a while ago with around 180000 miles on it. yes from 12000 miles up a better oil is usually specified. so what many people choose to use a better oil in any case. long drain oils are increasingly common and are now almost the standard oils for diesel engines. witness api ch4 which is equivilent to acea e3 or e5 or what used to be called 45000km super high performance oil. oil is not rocket science for the consumer. one just uses the oil standard and viscosity as specified by the car manufacturer. its that simple. huw .

From : steve

the oil would variously be hardly used. only two cold starts and running at operating temperature for long distance. no problem. do you think an engine tires and needs a rest stop no. it is not flesh and blood. you are likely talking of no more than 4500 miles for that journey. well i saw the oil when i drained it from that 1969 dart slant six. it had run wide open over 100mph for several hours of that trip. it did stop once for a few hours at -40f to wait for the pass to be blown out. the oil was in a vey grungy condition when drained. worse than i have ever had oil on my vehicles appear in 40 years. things have changed a bit since 1969 though. at least they have over here - but a 69 engine under thouse conditions shouldnt have inordinately fouled the oil. *my* 66 and 69 chrysler engines go for 7000 miles between changes and hard running is easier on the oil than loafing. if his slant-6 really did foul its oil that badly on one trim then the engine had some other problem- broken ring dead pcv system blown head gasket who knows what. but it had a problem that caused the dirty oil. .

From : dtj

on 1 feb 2006 100606 -0800 thom thomcasey@gmail.com wrote the real question is would the aouto workers in the us be more motivated to produce quality assembly and practices if they knew that poor quality=poor job performance that way they can be like everyone else in the world. work good pay good work bad fired!!!! yes which is why unions are bad. not to mention i bet us car prices would fall if workers were paid for experience and quality instead of position and tenure. suer but how would that occur. ************************* dave .

From : dtj

on wed 1 feb 2006 140539 -0500 christopher thompson kf4drr@alltel.net wrote dont think that manufacturing jobs in the us dont work exactly like that. and i speak from experiance ive seen it happen more than once in the plant i work in. granted we are not auto assembly but manufacturing is manufacturing. -chris proud highspeed manufacturing tech who never graduated from kindergarten and so is incapable of writing coherent sentences. ************************* dave .

From : dtj

on wed 01 feb 2006 161936 -0500 clare at snyder.on.ca wrote on tue 31 jan 2006 224817 -0600 dtj none@nowhere.com wrote on tue 31 jan 2006 132156 -0500 clare at snyder.on.ca wrote on sun 29 jan 2006 151620 -0600 dtj none@nowhere.com wrote on sun 29 jan 2006 185409 -0000 huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote the most densly populated nations tend to be the most prosperous and china boy - someone needs to go to haiti or burkina faso. quite densely populated compared to the usa canada europe or even south africa and 2 of the 5 poorest countries in the world. either you need to learn how to post or you have no clue about how poor haiti really is. ************************* dave pardon i said haiti and burkina are two of the poorest countries in the world. where am i wrong no you said they are two of the poorest countries in the world and the most prosperous. ************************* dave .

From : max dodge

what is an f450 super duty rated at max you can take one off the dealers lot with a pickup box factory installed. perhaps you can but its not classed as a pickup at that level. from there on up to 24k or so its medium duty. pickups are light duty. both the government and the manufacturers make this distinction. the difference in europe is there are very few pickups comparatively and they tend to be 1/4 ton vannettes for the gentleman farmer or medium duty commercial vehicles for use by tradesmen or for commercial cartage. thanks for confirming what i felt was the case most pickups in europe are very light weight. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author on mon 30 jan 2006 223937 gmt max dodge max340@verizon.net wrote i dont think there are many pickups sold in europe but feel free to cite proven statistics. in the states a pickup isnt built above the one ton level. ill bet its the same in europe. what is an f450 super duty rated at max you can take one off the dealers lot with a pickup box factory installed. the difference in europe is there are very few pickups comparatively and they tend to be 1/4 ton vannettes for the gentleman farmer or medium duty commercial vehicles for use by tradesmen or for commercial cartage. aussie sees more utes of the 1/2 ton variety. africa sees mostly the little 1/4 tonners and 1/2 - 1 ton asian pickups like nissan hardbodies totota hilux mitsubishi raiders etc and the 1 ton and up dynas etc which are really more like our medium duty trucks gm forwards fusos etc as well as a host of medium duty euro lorries in the 5-10 ton range. and a whole lot of ancient euro heavies - man. dubrava leyland mercedes and a host of other french eastern block chinese german and british museum pieces.or 4x4s. and some of the old heavies are all wheel drive too. .

From : huw

steve wrote the oil would variously be hardly used. only two cold starts and running at operating temperature for long distance. no problem. do you think an engine tires and needs a rest stop no. it is not flesh and blood. you are likely talking of no more than 4500 miles for that journey. well i saw the oil when i drained it from that 1969 dart slant six. it had run wide open over 100mph for several hours of that trip. it did stop once for a few hours at -40f to wait for the pass to be blown out. the oil was in a vey grungy condition when drained. worse than i have ever had oil on my vehicles appear in 40 years. things have changed a bit since 1969 though. at least they have over here - but a 69 engine under thouse conditions shouldnt have inordinately fouled the oil. *my* 66 and 69 chrysler engines go for 7000 miles between changes and hard running is easier on the oil than loafing. if his slant-6 really did foul its oil that badly on one trim then the engine had some other problem- broken ring dead pcv system blown head gasket who knows what. but it had a problem that caused the dirty oil. im inclined to agree with you but i dont know those engines. i do remember ford escort engines of that period which did need 4500 mile oil changes because by 6000 miles the oil was basically f****d. mind you the engines generally didnt last more than 100000 back then without a rebuild as i remember it no matter how often the oil was changed. there are still plenty of rebuilt escorts of that age running around here of that vintage. my nephew works with a specialist company that just rebuild them for enthusiasts or sad gits as i call them. huw .

From : max dodge

as indeed they are in many cities. subway or underground trains are an excellent example of the way trains can and are used to carry passengers efficiently. so you admit youve been full of dung during these posts -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max dodge wrote it is noteworthy that you have changed from comparing passenger carrying vehicles to heavy freight. you should note that i dont disagree with you that trains are efficient freight carriers as long as they load at the production point and unload at the processing point and the distance is long. it is further noteworthy that if passenger rail were used as extensively as it could be the terminals would be as you suggest in residential work shopping and entertainment centers. as indeed they are in many cities. subway or underground trains are an excellent example of the way trains can and are used to carry passengers efficiently. huw .

From : max dodge

the only limit is how many trains will fit on each route. and that is not many. another inefficiency. i hope you have a spcific figure in mind when claiming not many. apparently you know very little about american railroads. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max dodge wrote what you dont appear to accept is the premise that there is a role for rail but only one limited to certain circumstances. false. rail can be part of a well designed freight distribution system on almost any level. have you missed the tofc service container service and other intermodal types that are part of the new wave of rail use have you missed the express service offered by almost every railroad in the states did you realize that many railroads are experiencing a growth cycle unheard of in industry for over a decade if everything from ups packages to bulk commodities to passengers can be moved by rail the only limit is how many trains will fit on each route. and that is not many. another inefficiency. huw .

From : larry greenhuw

on 01/02/06 453 pm christopher thompson wrote blue does not indicate pd there in ontario pd use red and white with amber on some of the newer bubble gum machines as do ambulance. fire use red and white and sometimes have the addition of green flashers green indicates part time firemen en route to a call but they must adhere to all traffic regulations including speed and traffic lights. blue is *only* used for snow removal vehicles plows backhoes graders etc. during a snow storm as blue light is easier to see in the snow. when spring comes around all the blue lenses are changed out for amber ones for summer use. -- larry green .

From : guenter scholz

100 kph guarantees an easy answer but so does 60 mph. there is no difference in practical terms!!! steve bingo that was what the original discussion was about.... the easy answer ... of course there is no practical difference. i guess the point of the original discussion can get easily lost in the to and fro best regards guenter .

From : max dodge

they only work efficiently when travelling from city to city and over long distances. even then they struggle to be competitive with cars financially even though here their fuel is a tenth of the price of road fuel and they recieve huge subsidies on top to keep running. all the branch lines that were not remotely economic which served the smaller towns and villages were dismantled in the 1960s. false light rail transit in urban centers is not long distance nor is it city to city yet it is still efficient. as to the branch line youll find upon doing some research that many of the abandoned branch lines have been bought up by smaller corporations and now run rail service efficiently and at a profit. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max dodge wrote if rail is no less expensive that truck haulage for heavy commodities it begs the question why anyone uses it ! in the states this depends on routes and rates of the various companies both rail and truck. if proper planning is put forth rail is more efficient and could be used as a long term solution to an energy shortage. what huw refuses to believe is that not only can frieght and passengers be carried with equal efficiency but that rail can be used effectively in the big picture. somehow all the people who claim rail wont work are set on keeping rail exactly as it is. certainly that wont work long term and the railroads know it. thus they are making changes and investing money to take advantage of their efficiency. they only work efficiently when travelling from city to city and over long distances. even then they struggle to be competitive with cars financially even though here their fuel is a tenth of the price of road fuel and they recieve huge subsidies on top to keep running. all the branch lines that were not remotely economic which served the smaller towns and villages were dismantled in the 1960s. huw the only difficult thing here is opening ones mind to see possibilitites rather than assumptions. huw wrote max dodge wrote your lack of understanding if repeated in corporate circles explains a lot about how gm and ford got where they are. if the train were efficient it would be utilised to a greater extent than is now the case. ergo it is not efficient therefore it is not utilised. wrong plonkmeister. you are still confusing cost effective with energy efficient. it cost less to ship by truck but a train is still more energy efficient. you have lost the passenger arguement and are attempting to change the topic to freight. good you just carry on. i must have missed this one. if rail is no less expensive that truck haulage for heavy commodities it begs the question why anyone uses it ! graham .

From : huw

max dodge wrote what is an f450 super duty rated at max you can take one off the dealers lot with a pickup box factory installed. perhaps you can but its not classed as a pickup at that level. from there on up to 24k or so its medium duty. pickups are light duty. both the government and the manufacturers make this distinction. the difference in europe is there are very few pickups comparatively and they tend to be 1/4 ton vannettes for the gentleman farmer or medium duty commercial vehicles for use by tradesmen or for commercial cartage. thanks for confirming what i felt was the case most pickups in europe are very light weight. confirm all you like but the fact remains that most european pickups have a one metric ton payload. even the huge numbers of extended or king cabs on the road today have a one ton payload or near enough. i run some and am in daily contact with many customers who run almost every non american brand under the sun and ford. the ford/mazda one tonner is built........ is it in malaysia no. singapore maybe but somewhere in that general region in a factory jointly owned by the two corps. thailand perhaps. http//www.carpages.co.uk/isuzu/isuzurodeopickuppart1221003.aspswitched=on&echo=993123965 http//www.best4vans.co.uk/vandetails-482.html http//uk.cars.yahoo.com/car-reviews/car-and-driving/mitsubishi-l200-2002298.html a new version of the l200 has recently been launched this is the extremely ugly new one http//www.autoexpress.co.uk/premiere/2714/mitsubishil200.html http//www.ford.co.uk/ie/ranger/-/- the bestselling land rover. the short wheelbase pickup and van is the best seller in the range in the uk but worldwide the 110inch wheelbase is by far the best seller including the rest of europe. not that this variant is not a good seller in the uk either. http//www.landrover.com/gb/en/vehicles/defender/towingandcarrying.htm what are the others in the market hmm. the toyota hilux which launched a new model back in june. this is an ugly son-of-a-bitch too. it is also underpowered in comparison with its contemporaries. try www.toyota.co.uk then find the tab for hilux across the top of the page. please let me know of any small pickups that sell in any volume apart from the slow selling vw caddy which themselves are a rare sight on our roads. i know of only one relitively new one in the area and that is over 5 years old and that belongs to an employee of mine. huw huw .

From : huw

max dodge wrote the only limit is how many trains will fit on each route. and that is not many. another inefficiency. i hope you have a spcific figure in mind when claiming not many. apparently you know very little about american railroads. i know that it little used by travellers and mainly used by bulk cargo such as chemicals and raw materials and metals. huw .

From : dtj

on wed 01 feb 2006 010223 -0500 clare at snyder.on.ca wrote 1/4-1/2 ton pickups in town regularly move people carry construction supplies are used for small businesses and often have better mileage than cars. name one 1/2 ton pu that gets better mileage than the average car. explain how any 1/2 ton regularly moves more people. pus full of illegal aliens not included. ************************* dave ever see a dodge megacab pickup truck with a bigger cab than most large sedans. 2 door pickups are becoming the minority over here. regularly. as in frequently. not oh once a week or so. an f150 with a cap or toneau gets as good mileage if not better on the highway than a ford taurus. sure as long as the taurus is running on 30 year old spark plugs with 2 cycle gas instead of regular and towing a 40000 boat behind it. a neighbor of mine just got rid of his truck f150 which never got better than 8mpg. ever. if you think any car averages less than 8mpg you need to get a clue. ************************* dave .

From : huw

max dodge wrote as indeed they are in many cities. subway or underground trains are an excellent example of the way trains can and are used to carry passengers efficiently. so you admit youve been full of dung during these posts no. you know that we have been talking of main line trains or locomotives not subway trains. but if you feel that you are vindicated that is fine by me. it fools no-one though. if trains were as efficient as you claim then they would be competitive. in general they are not financially competitive or flexible for various reasons that i and others have listed. in certain circumstances they are efficient and these limited circumstances have also been listed and acknowledged. huw .

From : dtj

on wed 01 feb 2006 224012 +0100 the spanish inquisition ximinez@myown.mailcan.com wrote bill putney wrote pooh bear wrote do you read books starting at the end too theres a difference when ive been reading thru a book and am on chapter 10 i flip to chapter 10 to start reading again - i dont start all the way back at the beginning but the previous chapters are there to refer back to if needed. not that im for or against top posting but your example works against you. no and thats why its not just top-posting thats annoying but bottom posting and not editing away superfluous material is at least as bad. a badly edited bottom-post-thread can be very annoying to read. so cut away exccess fat and create a post that is readable be itself. like i tried to make this one. agreed. top posting is occasionally done in a manner that is acceptable but not very often. bottom posting is usually done well but there are always idiots who cant. inline is really best. all of them must be done with proper snippage or they dont work. ************************* dave .

From : dtj

on wed 01 feb 2006 224538 +0100 the spanish inquisition ximinez@myown.mailcan.com wrote geez dave. you really are hung up on rules. you are one fucked up up tight guy. no hes right. its a matter of intelligence and efficiency. anyone smart enough to see what works and what doesnt can see why top posting sucks in multi-user discussion threads. hes just not very nice about it but i understand his frustration. i disagree. i am nice about things. the first time the second time usually even the third fourth and fifth. once i decide someone is a fucktard nice goes away. which is why even though i disagree with you here i am not in any way being a meany to you. idiots who cant use the shift key well that is why we have the ability to plonk. ************************* dave .

From : roy

theguy wrote on mon 30 jan 2006 180913 -0600 dtj none@nowhere.com wrote on mon 30 jan 2006 035707 gmt tom lawrence tnloaswpraemnmcien5g@earthlink.net wrote can some one explain to me why people have such a bug up their butt about top-posting i find it much more convenient when reading through a thread... do you read books starting at the end too only top posters do. no and i dont read page 1 then page 1-2 then page 1-3 1-4 etc. when reading down through a thread its helpful to ignore all the crap that ive already read... exactly. which is why there are three forms of posting one of which is unacceptable. geez dave. you really are hung up on rules. you are one fucked up up tight guy. no hes right. its a matter of intelligence and efficiency. no net nanny it is a person doing what they want. you and that other fool should get a room somewhere. .

From : theguy

on wed 01 feb 2006 175058 -0600 dtj none@nowhere.com wrote on wed 01 feb 2006 224012 +0100 the spanish inquisition ximinez@myown.mailcan.com wrote bill putney wrote pooh bear wrote do you read books starting at the end too theres a difference when ive been reading thru a book and am on chapter 10 i flip to chapter 10 to start reading again - i dont start all the way back at the beginning but the previous chapters are there to refer back to if needed. not that im for or against top posting but your example works against you. no and thats why its not just top-posting thats annoying but bottom posting and not editing away superfluous material is at least as bad. a badly edited bottom-post-thread can be very annoying to read. so cut away exccess fat and create a post that is readable be itself. like i tried to make this one. agreed. top posting is occasionally done in a manner that is acceptable but not very often. bottom posting is usually done well but there are always idiots who cant. inline is really best. all of them must be done with proper snippage or they dont work. ************************* dave yeah just what we need in this world. more rules. how about you just read it however it is posted and if you can figure it out cool. if you cant let it go. .

From : max dodge

http//www.carpages.co.uk/isuzu/isuzurodeopickuppart1221003.aspswitched=on&echo=993123965 you call that a one ton pickup truly amusing.... 2500lbs capacity and 5510 towing. laughable at best. my 3/4 ton truck has 2500lbs capacity limit by law 5000lbs by rating on tires and axles. its towing capacity is 12000lbs. ive had it on road at 14000lbs gross weight. and yes its just a pickup and not the biggest made in the u.s. http//www.best4vans.co.uk/vandetails-482.html less than the above truck. http//uk.cars.yahoo.com/car-reviews/car-and-driving/mitsubishi-l200-2002298.html a new version of the l200 has recently been launched a stunning 113hp. how nice. im at the low end of the scale running 215hp and 420ftlbs of torque in my truck. visit the dodge website and youll find that payload in a one ton 4x4 regular cab 3500 series is 5050lbs and a truck with a quad cab four doors has a payload of 2900lbs. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max dodge wrote what is an f450 super duty rated at max you can take one off the dealers lot with a pickup box factory installed. perhaps you can but its not classed as a pickup at that level. from there on up to 24k or so its medium duty. pickups are light duty. both the government and the manufacturers make this distinction. the difference in europe is there are very few pickups comparatively and they tend to be 1/4 ton vannettes for the gentleman farmer or medium duty commercial vehicles for use by tradesmen or for commercial cartage. thanks for confirming what i felt was the case most pickups in europe are very light weight. confirm all you like but the fact remains that most european pickups have a one metric ton payload. even the huge numbers of extended or king cabs on the road today have a one ton payload or near enough. i run some and am in daily contact with many customers who run almost every non american brand under the sun and ford. the ford/mazda one tonner is built........ is it in malaysia no. singapore maybe but somewhere in that general region in a factory jointly owned by the two corps. thailand perhaps. http//www.carpages.co.uk/isuzu/isuzurodeopickuppart1221003.aspswitched=on&echo=993123965 http//www.best4vans.co.uk/vandetails-482.html http//uk.cars.yahoo.com/car-reviews/car-and-driving/mitsubishi-l200-2002298.html a new version of the l200 has recently been launched this is the extremely ugly new one http//www.autoexpress.co.uk/premiere/2714/mitsubishil200.html http//www.ford.co.uk/ie/ranger/-/- the bestselling land rover. the short wheelbase pickup and van is the best seller in the range in the uk but worldwide the 110inch wheelbase is by far the best seller including the rest of europe. not that this variant is not a good seller in the uk either. http//www.landrover.com/gb/en/vehicles/defender/towingandcarrying.htm what are the others in the market hmm. the toyota hilux which launched a new model back in june. this is an ugly son-of-a-bitch too. it is also underpowered in comparison with its contemporaries. try www.toyota.co.uk then find the tab for hilux across the top of the page. please let me know of any small pickups that sell in any volume apart from the slow selling vw caddy which themselves are a rare sight on our roads. i know of only one relitively new one in the area and that is over 5 years old and that belongs to an employee of mine. huw huw .

From : max dodge

i know that it little used by travellers and mainly used by bulk cargo such as chemicals and raw materials and metals. then you not only havent been reading what ive posted youve not been reading anything with up to date info about our rail system. no real surprise there. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max dodge wrote the only limit is how many trains will fit on each route. and that is not many. another inefficiency. i hope you have a spcific figure in mind when claiming not many. apparently you know very little about american railroads. i know that it little used by travellers and mainly used by bulk cargo such as chemicals and raw materials and metals. huw .

From : christopher thompson

on wed 1 feb 2006 140539 -0500 christopher thompson kf4drr@alltel.net wrote -chris proud highspeed manufacturing tech who never graduated from kindergarten and so is incapable of writing coherent sentences. ************************* dave dave i have been polite so far with everyone. but your snip at my intelegence level is beyond belief. you act as if you know something about my education level but obviously you dont. i infact have a college education now granted my english/spelling is not the best but i was not an english major. now take your grade school comments and shove them you know where. -- -chris 05 ctd 99 durango .

From : max dodge

no. you know that we have been talking of main line trains or locomotives not subway trains. but if you feel that you are vindicated that is fine by me. it fools no-one though. over here subway is passenger rail service since they run on the same rails as surface trains or elevateds and use virtually the same equipment. if trains were as efficient as you claim then they would be competitive. in general they are not financially competitive or flexible for various reasons that i and others have listed. in certain circumstances they are efficient and these limited circumstances have also been listed and acknowledged. they are competitive as i showed via a price calcualtion two days ago. but efficiency does not mean they will be used as much as they should be. you seem to confuse efficiency with cost to th passenger. rail travel will always use far less fuel per ton moved over a mile than a car bus or a truck. until you prove otherwise your argument is at a standstill. plonk me yet -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max dodge wrote as indeed they are in many cities. subway or underground trains are an excellent example of the way trains can and are used to carry passengers efficiently. so you admit youve been full of dung during these posts no. you know that we have been talking of main line trains or locomotives not subway trains. but if you feel that you are vindicated that is fine by me. it fools no-one though. if trains were as efficient as you claim then they would be competitive. in general they are not financially competitive or flexible for various reasons that i and others have listed. in certain circumstances they are efficient and these limited circumstances have also been listed and acknowledged. huw .

From : theguy

on wed 01 feb 2006 175251 -0600 dtj none@nowhere.com wrote on wed 01 feb 2006 224538 +0100 the spanish inquisition ximinez@myown.mailcan.com wrote geez dave. you really are hung up on rules. you are one fucked up up tight guy. no hes right. its a matter of intelligence and efficiency. anyone smart enough to see what works and what doesnt can see why top posting sucks in multi-user discussion threads. hes just not very nice about it but i understand his frustration. i disagree. i am nice about things. the first time the second time usually even the third fourth and fifth. once i decide someone is a fucktard nice goes away. which is why even though i disagree with you here i am not in any way being a meany to you. idiots who cant use the shift key well that is why we have the ability to plonk. ************************* dave well then you probably know where you can put the shift key huh .

From : theguy

on wed 1 feb 2006 201727 -0500 christopher thompson kf4drr@alltel.net wrote on wed 1 feb 2006 140539 -0500 christopher thompson kf4drr@alltel.net wrote -chris proud highspeed manufacturing tech who never graduated from kindergarten and so is incapable of writing coherent sentences. ************************* dave dave i have been polite so far with everyone. but your snip at my intelegence level is beyond belief. you act as if you know something about my education level but obviously you dont. i infact have a college education now granted my english/spelling is not the best but i was not an english major. now take your grade school comments and shove them you know where. man dont take it personally. dave is a fucktard to everyone. i could overlook that but he is an idiot besides. its one thing to be as arrogant as he is but if youre going to be that arrogant you at least should have some brains to fall back on. .

From : pooh bear

max dodge wrote http//www.carpages.co.uk/isuzu/isuzurodeopickuppart1221003.aspswitched=on&echo=993123965 you call that a one ton pickup truly amusing.... 2500lbs capacity and 5510 towing. laughable at best. theres simply not much demand for anything more. graham .

From : huw

max dodge wrote http//www.carpages.co.uk/isuzu/isuzurodeopickuppart1221003.aspswitched=on&echo=993123965 you call that a one ton pickup yes i knew you would be saying my dick is bigger than your dick. all so very predictable. huw .

From : huw

max dodge wrote i know that it little used by travellers and mainly used by bulk cargo such as chemicals and raw materials and metals. then you not only havent been reading what ive posted youve not been reading anything with up to date info about our rail system. no real surprise there. ive read what you have written and it is mostly bollocks. huw .

From : clare at snyder on ca

on wed 01 feb 2006 160229 -0600 steve no@spam.thanks wrote the oil would variously be hardly used. only two cold starts and running at operating temperature for long distance. no problem. do you think an engine tires and needs a rest stop no. it is not flesh and blood. you are likely talking of no more than 4500 miles for that journey. well i saw the oil when i drained it from that 1969 dart slant six. it had run wide open over 100mph for several hours of that trip. it did stop once for a few hours at -40f to wait for the pass to be blown out. the oil was in a vey grungy condition when drained. worse than i have ever had oil on my vehicles appear in 40 years. things have changed a bit since 1969 though. at least they have over here - but a 69 engine under thouse conditions shouldnt have inordinately fouled the oil. *my* 66 and 69 chrysler engines go for 7000 miles between changes and hard running is easier on the oil than loafing. if his slant-6 really did foul its oil that badly on one trim then the engine had some other problem- broken ring dead pcv system blown head gasket who knows what. but it had a problem that caused the dirty oil. nope - it went another 100000 and i never added oil between changes. i sold it with 223000 miles on it in 1973 you heard right to go to africa. i had to finish my 53 coronet before i left so the dart went and i put some miles on a 65 rambler till i got the hemi going. took it the 53 hemi coronetfrom elmira ontario to pei for its first outing then drove it back home and put it in storage for 2 years. that dart was not totally stock - it was tuned and really liked running at 4500 rpm. not quite like my old 63 valiant 170 that regularly turned over 5000. the valiant had to run champion n3 or nippondenso w25 plugs or it burned them off in short order. the dart was good on n7 or n9 iirc but was really hard on n14s. the dart was ok on regular but the valiant was pretty much a premium engine.sunoco 260 preffered. 206 rw hp on the dyno through the torquflite60 in low 90 in second and pin the needle in third. .

From : clare at snyder on ca

on wed 01 feb 2006 174831 -0600 dtj none@nowhere.com wrote on wed 01 feb 2006 161936 -0500 clare at snyder.on.ca wrote on tue 31 jan 2006 224817 -0600 dtj none@nowhere.com wrote on tue 31 jan 2006 132156 -0500 clare at snyder.on.ca wrote on sun 29 jan 2006 151620 -0600 dtj none@nowhere.com wrote on sun 29 jan 2006 185409 -0000 huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote the most densly populated nations tend to be the most prosperous and china boy - someone needs to go to haiti or burkina faso. quite densely populated compared to the usa canada europe or even south africa and 2 of the 5 poorest countries in the world. either you need to learn how to post or you have no clue about how poor haiti really is. ************************* dave pardon i said haiti and burkina are two of the poorest countries in the world. where am i wrong no you said they are two of the poorest countries in the world and the most prosperous. ************************* dave you gotta learn to read da english dave. no i said quite densely populated and 2 of the 5 poorest countries in the world. average income in the village i visited was well under $14 per man/woman and child per year. and it was one of the more prosperous villages. in the cities or large towns like banfora things were a bit better but even in ougadougou the capital poverty was very evident. as was aids. .

From : clare at snyder on ca

on wed 01 feb 2006 174431 -0600 dtj none@nowhere.com wrote on wed 01 feb 2006 010223 -0500 clare at snyder.on.ca wrote 1/4-1/2 ton pickups in town regularly move people carry construction supplies are used for small businesses and often have better mileage than cars. name one 1/2 ton pu that gets better mileage than the average car. explain how any 1/2 ton regularly moves more people. pus full of illegal aliens not included. ************************* dave ever see a dodge megacab pickup truck with a bigger cab than most large sedans. 2 door pickups are becoming the minority over here. regularly. as in frequently. not oh once a week or so. an f150 with a cap or toneau gets as good mileage if not better on the highway than a ford taurus. sure as long as the taurus is running on 30 year old spark plugs with 2 cycle gas instead of regular and towing a 40000 boat behind it. a neighbor of mine just got rid of his truck f150 which never got better than 8mpg. ever. if you think any car averages less than 8mpg you need to get a clue. ************************* dave well when we take little brothers f150 up to his place in gravenhurst from kitchener without the trailer and without the quad on the back it gets 25 miles to the canadian gallon if he doesnt push it too hard. its a 4x4 v8. thats about the same he gets when he takes his daughters escort wagon - which is kept in a good state of tune. actually if he doesnt chase the escort he can get close to 30.if he chases the f150 less than half that. in town - a totally different story. my 94 transsport 3.8 cant do that25. my old 3.0 new yorker could approach 25 - not sure what the 2.5 mystique is doing - it doesnt hit the highway too often. .

From : clare at snyder on ca

on wed 1 feb 2006 230346 -0000 huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote max dodge wrote what is an f450 super duty rated at max you can take one off the dealers lot with a pickup box factory installed. perhaps you can but its not classed as a pickup at that level. from there on up to 24k or so its medium duty. pickups are light duty. both the government and the manufacturers make this distinction. the difference in europe is there are very few pickups comparatively and they tend to be 1/4 ton vannettes for the gentleman farmer or medium duty commercial vehicles for use by tradesmen or for commercial cartage. thanks for confirming what i felt was the case most pickups in europe are very light weight. confirm all you like but the fact remains that most european pickups have a one metric ton payload. even the huge numbers of extended or king cabs on the road today have a one ton payload or near enough. i run some and am in daily contact with many customers who run almost every non american brand under the sun and ford. the ford/mazda one tonner is built........ is it in malaysia no. singapore maybe but somewhere in that general region in a factory jointly owned by the two corps. thailand perhaps. http//www.carpages.co.uk/isuzu/isuzurodeopickuppart1221003.as

From : max dodge

ive read what you have written and it is mostly bollocks. thus admitting that you havent bothered with actually researching your statements. i suggest you start by reading railway age an excellent publication for the rail industry. then trains and railfan and railroad both excellent publications as well. then perhaps you could look at the railroads websites for more real info. moral of the story here huw... bring facts. that you havent got any isnt my fault. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max dodge wrote i know that it little used by travellers and mainly used by bulk cargo such as chemicals and raw materials and metals. then you not only havent been reading what ive posted youve not been reading anything with up to date info about our rail system. no real surprise there. ive read what you have written and it is mostly bollocks. huw .

From : pooh bear

max dodge wrote truly amusing.... 2500lbs capacity and 5510 towing. laughable at best. theres simply not much demand for anything more. right thus my point that americans are harder on our vehicles. three quarter and one ton vehicles here in the states are capable of far more than your one ton vehicles because they need to be capable at that level. i fail to see any logic behind your assertion. graham .

From : pooh bear

clare at snyder.on.ca wrote on wed 1 feb 2006 092938 -0000 huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote huge amounts of salt being spread on british roads as well. i think it was the high price of steel at that time that made it attractive to recycle scrap iron which resulted in poor quality bodies. i hope standards are kept high today as the price of steel over the past twelve months has been just as high historically speaking. they have finally figured out how to re-smelt steel instead of just heating it up and re-rolling it which from the results appears to be about all they did in the seventies. todays quality steels can contain large proportions of remelted scrap. many panels on modern cars are also galvanised. that makes a *big* difference. graham .

From : huw

clare at snyder.on.ca wrote the old l200 mitsushitty was sold here as a dodge d50 - a half ton truck in america. this is the extremely ugly new one http//www.autoexpress.co.uk/premiere/2714/mitsubishil200.html http//www.ford.co.uk/ie/ranger/-/- well virtuall the same mazda/ranger is sold here as a half ton by both mazda and ford.. yes they have heavier duty undercarriage elswhere in the world to carry one ton. in america and possibly canada they fit soft springs to provide a more comfortable ride. in europe and especially asia and some middle eastern countries these things are beasts of burden. the bestselling land rover. the short wheelbase pickup and van is the best seller in the range in the uk but worldwide the 110inch wheelbase is by far the best seller including the rest of europe. not that this variant is not a good seller in the uk either. http//www.landrover.com/gb/en/vehicles/defender/towingandcarrying.htm what are the others in the market hmm. the toyota hilux which launched a new model back in june. this is an ugly son-of-a-bitch too. it is also underpowered in comparison with its contemporaries. try www.toyota.co.uk then find the tab for hilux across the top of the page. most hilux are sold as 1/2 ton trucks although the frame is the same on the 1 ton. as i said different suspension. yes the hilux is sold as a 1 ton - but not nearly all of them. we used to have hilux 1/2 and one ton pickups as well as 1 ton commercial cab and chassis when we imported them from japan. our tacoma is american built and not available as a 1 ton - as most american users require a larger truck when they want a 1 ton capacity. almost all hilux sold in most areas ouside north america are rated at 1 ton with the hd underpinnings. they have never been sold here downrated to half a ton. in north america we have the toyota tacoma 1/2 ton and a few 3/4 ton versions875-1640 lb payload as well as the honking big tundra. 1455 to 2025 lb payload capacity - including passengers on the tundra. it will tow 6500 lbs though. legal limit to tow here is 3.5 tons and 4 tons with rare coupled brakes. once more capacity is needed than 3.5 tons then the pickup loses favour to 7.5 ton commercial forward cab trucks which are ten a penny common. huw please let me know of any small pickups that sell in any volume apart from the slow selling vw caddy which themselves are a rare sight on our roads. i know of only one relitively new one in the area and that is over 5 years old and that belongs to an employee of mine. huw huw .

From : huw

max dodge wrote no. you know that we have been talking of main line trains or locomotives not subway trains. but if you feel that you are vindicated that is fine by me. it fools no-one though. over here subway is passenger rail service since they run on the same rails as surface trains or elevateds and use virtually the same equipment. if trains were as efficient as you claim then they would be competitive. in general they are not financially competitive or flexible for various reasons that i and others have listed. in certain circumstances they are efficient and these limited circumstances have also been listed and acknowledged. they are competitive as i showed via a price calcualtion two days ago. but efficiency does not mean they will be used as much as they should be. you seem to confuse efficiency with cost to th passenger. rail travel will always use far less fuel per ton moved over a mile than a car bus or a truck. until you prove otherwise your argument is at a standstill. plonk me yet max dodge wrote as indeed they are in many cities. subway or underground trains are an excellent example of the way trains can and are used to carry passengers efficiently. so you admit youve been full of dung during these posts no. you know that we have been talking of main line trains or locomotives not subway trains. but if you feel that you are vindicated that is fine by me. it fools no-one though. if trains were as efficient as you claim then they would be competitive. in general they are not financially competitive or flexible for various reasons that i and others have listed. in certain circumstances they are efficient and these limited circumstances have also been listed and acknowledged. huw no but your childish mine is bigger than yours attitude shows you up for what you are. carry on. huw .

From : max dodge

truly amusing.... 2500lbs capacity and 5510 towing. laughable at best. theres simply not much demand for anything more. right thus my point that americans are harder on our vehicles. three quarter and one ton vehicles here in the states are capable of far more than your one ton vehicles because they need to be capable at that level. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max dodge wrote http//www.carpages.co.uk/isuzu/isuzurodeopickuppart1221003.aspswitched=on&echo=993123965 you call that a one ton pickup truly amusing.... 2500lbs capacity and 5510 towing. laughable at best. theres simply not much demand for anything more. graham .

From : max dodge

no but your childish mine is bigger than yours attitude shows you up for what you are. carry on. a man who resorts to personal insult has lost the argument based on facts. have a nice day huw. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max dodge wrote no. you know that we have been talking of main line trains or locomotives not subway trains. but if you feel that you are vindicated that is fine by me. it fools no-one though. over here subway is passenger rail service since they run on the same rails as surface trains or elevateds and use virtually the same equipment. if trains were as efficient as you claim then they would be competitive. in general they are not financially competitive or flexible for various reasons that i and others have listed. in certain circumstances they are efficient and these limited circumstances have also been listed and acknowledged. they are competitive as i showed via a price calcualtion two days ago. but efficiency does not mean they will be used as much as they should be. you seem to confuse efficiency with cost to th passenger. rail travel will always use far less fuel per ton moved over a mile than a car bus or a truck. until you prove otherwise your argument is at a standstill. plonk me yet max dodge wrote as indeed they are in many cities. subway or underground trains are an excellent example of the way trains can and are used to carry passengers efficiently. so you admit youve been full of dung during these posts no. you know that we have been talking of main line trains or locomotives not subway trains. but if you feel that you are vindicated that is fine by me. it fools no-one though. if trains were as efficient as you claim then they would be competitive. in general they are not financially competitive or flexible for various reasons that i and others have listed. in certain circumstances they are efficient and these limited circumstances have also been listed and acknowledged. huw no but your childish mine is bigger than yours attitude shows you up for what you are. carry on. huw .

From : max dodge

yes i knew you would be saying my dick is bigger than your dick. all so very predictable. ahh yes the bitter reply of a person who has lost after finding out that the facts prove him wrong. its not about penis size its about truck capacity. dont be claiming you have such tough heavy duty equipment if you havent got it the ladies hate when that happens. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max dodge wrote http//www.carpages.co.uk/isuzu/isuzurodeopickuppart1221003.aspswitched=on&echo=993123965 you call that a one ton pickup yes i knew you would be saying my dick is bigger than your dick. all so very predictable. huw .

From : roy

max dodge wrote no but your childish mine is bigger than yours attitude shows you up for what you are. carry on. probably true. ive seen it posted here before in fact many have said max what a big prick! max be gentle with your new toy will ya. gbfg roy .

From : daniel j stern

on thu 2 feb 2006 pooh bear wrote americans are harder on our vehicles. three quarter and one ton vehicles here in the states are capable of far more than your one ton vehicles because they need to be capable at that level. i fail to see any logic behind your assertion. the failure would appear to be on your end then. the statement made was clear and cogent. .

From : miles

steve wrote huw wrote 200000+ miles was not uncommon life on a lot of 60s american engines it was uncommon. generally in the 60s 100000 miles was about time for a rebuild. at the very least the heads rebuilt. sure there were some great engines that went far longer but they were the exception and not the rule. .

From : huw

max dodge wrote yes i knew you would be saying my dick is bigger than your dick. all so very predictable. ahh yes the bitter reply of a person who has lost after finding out that the facts prove him wrong. its not about penis size its about truck capacity. dont be claiming you have such tough heavy duty equipment if you havent got it the ladies hate when that happens. we have a right one here folks! huw .

From : richard sexton

agreed. top posting is occasionally done in a manner that is acceptable but not very often. bottom posting is usually done well but there are always idiots who cant. inline is really best. all of them must be done with proper snippage or they dont work. yeah just what we need in this world. more rules. how about you just read it however it is posted and if you can figure it out cool. if you cant let it go. before you stumbled onto usenet we had all agreed this was the way to follow up a post. top posting is for newbies. -- need mercedes parts - http//parts.mbz.org richard sexton | mercedes stuff http//mbz.org 1970 280se 72 280se | home page http//rs79.vrx.net 633csi 250se/c 300sd | http//aquaria.net http//killi.net .

From : roy

agreed. top posting is occasionally done in a manner that is acceptable but not very often. bottom posting is usually done well but there are always idiots who cant. inline is really best. all of them must be done with proper snippage or they dont work. yeah just what we need in this world. more rules. how about you just read it however it is posted and if you can figure it out cool. if you cant let it go. before you stumbled onto usenet we had all agreed this was the way to follow up a post. top posting is for newbies. oh it is the we had all boys. ive two words for you folks and they are not get well. im sure you are aware that nobody or any we all sets any rules. you may ask nicely for people to follow a pattern but thats as far as you all go. roy .

From : pooh bear

the truck wont charge ive replaced the batteryalternatorcomputer. no burned wires discharges. batt will charge after it sits. help! .

From : pooh bear

do the words bite me have any meaning to you - -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving like i said before i am not saying youre wrong i just dont personally see it but since you do this type of work and i never have... lucifer just put on his ear muffs.... .

From : bill putney

pooh bear wrote the following nationalities also flew with the raf or fleet air arm during the battle ...czechoslovakian 84 were not the czech republic and slovakia two separate entities at that time bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : dtj

on tue 31 jan 2006 030001 +0000 utc scholz@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca guenter scholz wrote you germans sure do like to rewrite history. ************************* dave .

From : guenter scholz

dtj none@nowhere.com wrote on tue 31 jan 2006 030001 +0000 utc scholz@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca guenter scholz wrote you germans sure do like to rewrite history. dave alternate history discussions get even better with some beer - cheers guenter ps canadian ... not german .

From : huw

daniel j. stern wrote on fri 3 feb 2006 miles wrote usenet is full of people that will argue anything. is not! is too! huw .

From : arif khokar

richard sexton wrote if youre running xp youre vulnerable just by being connected to the net even if youre not doing anything. that may be true if you dont set up the computer correctly. use strong passwords restricted accounts make sure that you remove the everybody group from accessing the hard drive etc. .

From : pooh bear

theguy wrote and pooh bear wanting to rip on our military. hey again at least we have one. i am sure it wont be long before you see proof of that since we will probably have to come over and save your sorry asses again. save us from what exactly you are indeed one serious fantasist. graham .

From : max dodge

dori a schmetterling wrote and can peugeot diesel engines not take their place at/near the top of the reliability tree yes. plenty used as taxis out there with upwards of 250000 miles on them with no problems other than normal fast moving service parts. huw .

From : dori a schmetterling

max dodge wrote so if left for 10000 to 15000 miles as is normal in europe they would not survive mine survive just fine. i have three cars over 100k two over 200k. at those service intervals they must be nearly as good as european cars then. huw .

From : pooh bear

max dodge wrote yes you just do that and ask them after they have been back again and again and seen their friends killed and maimed with no end in sight. to a man they are proud of their work proud of their accomplishments and proud to be in a position to make a difference. actually ive heard that plenty of us servicemen are totally pissed of with being in a country that doesnt even want them there - never mind the likelihood of being killed for their trouble. graham .

From : max dodge

wow!!!! we down to jabbin at my programs now hes one of the idiots that wandered in on the cross post. roy -chris 05 ctd 99 durango on sun 29 jan 2006 212747 -0500 christopher thompson kf4drr@alltel.net wrote you may not know this but there are actually good quality readers out there and outhouse express isnt one of them. on sun 29 jan 2006 140815 -0500 christopher thompson kf4drr@alltel.net wrote ok so you mean to tell me the crude oil admitting its a non renuable resource that we will eventually run out of show how it is non renewable. i assume that is what you meant. crude oil is a fossil fuel and takes what millions of years to make natually who knows but whether it takes a week or billions of years it is renewable. it isnt like they taught you in grade school - oil did not just come from dinosaurs. ************************* dave .

From : roy

no you didnt ! you waited til japan bombed pearl harbor over 2 years after the start of ww2. us forces didnt arrive *in the uk* until 1942. i think weve been over this but for your lack of observational skills ill put it here so you see it. we were supplying the uk with war materials well before pearl harbor along with naval escorts for the ships carrying that material. do some research. this saved england from invasion england was saved from invasion by the battle of britain in which the us played not one single jot. except for supplying the munitions to get the job done helping with the radar to spot incoming planes and then helping to bolster sagging numbers of airplanes. yeah we did nothing in that effort. and lead to the liberation of france. france was liberated by *allied* forces. not just the us. aside from the obvious brits and yanks there were canadians free french poles australians new zealanders indians czechs and many others. yeah but without the u.s. leadership and vast numbers not to mention wartime production and a host of other things no one would have set foot on the continent. yet they seem to know better than we how our military works. youre a lying sack of shit. and you sir are a misguided pompous ass. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of lib

From : matthew russotto

soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max dodge wrote and yet we managed to prevent all of europe from speaking german lol! excellent point. im always fascinated by the way people from outside the u.s. criticize our actions. frankly half of us disagree with any given military action. fortunately when most of the u.s. was opposed to going to war in 1940 we decided to enter the european theatre regardless. no you didnt ! you waited til japan bombed pearl harbor over 2 years after the start of ww2. us forces didnt arrive *in the uk* until 1942. this saved england from invasion england was saved from invasion by the battle of britain in which the us played not one single jot. and lead to the liberation of france. france was liberated by *allied* forces. not just the us. aside from the obvious brits and yanks there were canadians free french poles australians new zealanders indians czechs and many others. yet they seem to know better than we how our military works. youre a lying sack of shit. graham .

From : max dodge

on mon 30 jan 2006 200900 -0500 roy roy@home.net wrote on sun 29 jan 2006 155307 -0500 roy roy@home.net wrote well maybe if you werent used to getting paid $40 an hour to sweep floors you could deal with getting what normal people get for the same job. it dosent matter how much per hour a person gets. how about you monday go to work and go to your boss and tell him you want to give up 25% of your pay and some of your benifits. i doubt that will happen. but your pretty free to toss other peoples wages around. well duh. i dont get $40 bucks an hour to sweep floors. it isnt so much that people want unions to accept pay cuts as you should never have got what you are getting. right! the guy sweeping the floor walked in and demanded $40 @hour to sweep the floor. son of a bitch! he got it! take me there will ya you allegedly work for the auto unions so if you arent getting paid that much to sweep the floor it must be because you get paid to sleep. you should probably learn to follow a thread before posting to it. doing so will save you from looking like a total fool. normally you would be right. but this is dave he is pretty much a fool to start with. hey! i was trying to be nice. but you are correct . .

From : pooh bear

max dodge max340@verizon.net wrote in short rail is far more efficient at moving freight and people than other modes of travel. whats the efficiency of moving 100 tons of e.g. perishable goods by rail in such a manner that they are no longer usable by the time they make it to their destination -- theres no such thing as a free lunch but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. .

From : pooh bear

ill try one more time trains are viable only on few routes in every country. the whole point is that trains carry very light loads in many places if a frequent service is maintained for those few people who care to travel. and i shall rebut one more time. lack of use does not make rail a less viable alternative. you seem stuck in the present situation perhaps this is why you havent done the research to understand the possibilities rather than limiting yourself to the assumed facts. re freight you havent addressed the real-world situation. once again example butte - rochester in the usa. i have addressed it. sure carrying 1000 tons of coal a thousand miles from railhead to railhead is efficient. but thats hardly the bulk of the freight carried. correct but then we have the tofc intermodal use container bulk goods of all types from plastics to lumber to scrap iron to vegetable oil. all of these are done efficiently and easily by rail. then we have the express freight such as your dining set which ups wishes to put on rail. if a company in such a competitive service industry sees that rail is more cost effective and efficient than air or truck surely you can do some research and find out why -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author ill try one more time trains are viable only on few routes in every country. the whole point is that trains carry very light loads in many places if a frequent service is maintained for those few people who care to travel. re freight you havent addressed the real-world situation. once again example butte - rochester in the usa. sure carrying 1000 tons of coal a thousand miles from railhead to railhead is efficient. but thats hardly the bulk of the freight carried. das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- ... hardly but it works well with a fully occupied train. if you missed that point you are more daft than you suppose me to be. i commented plenty on freight traffic by rail. do some research youll find that not only is it far more efficient by rail but that our railroads are investing billions to expand service. ... .

From : max dodge

theguy wrote on tue 31 jan 2006 010844 +0000 pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote tbone wrote and yet we managed to prevent all of europe from speaking german lol! you do talk some astonishing drivel. graham well we should listen to you on this one graham. i mean you seem to be an expert on drivel. are you and tbone both uneducated beer swilling trailer trash who reckon *america rules* you sure sound like it. i suppose you reckon you can win an argument with a gun too ! graham .

From : max dodge

reading below i wonder if anyone went to school. to wit pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote max dodge wrote and yet we managed to prevent all of europe from speaking german lol! actually truth be told it was the russians .... the us essentially mopped up at the end when it was all over anyway... geesh talk about beating the rag tag bunch that was left over after the russians got through with them. excellent point. im always fascinated by the way people from outside the u.s. criticize our actions. frankly half of us disagree with any given military action. fortunately when most of the u.s. was opposed to going to war in 1940 we decided to enter the european theatre regardless. well i wont get into why i think the us got into the war.... no you didnt ! you waited til japan bombed pearl harbor over 2 years after the start of ww2. us forces didnt arrive *in the uk* until 1942. this saved england from invasion whatever makes you think anyone was interested in invading in the first place.... i would have thought that dunkirk put an end to that assumption. england was saved from invasion by the battle of britain in which the us played not one single jot. a terror campaign does not an invasion make. cheers .

From : max dodge

my comment was clearly worded in english. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author i shall just add that ol max dodge failed to comment on the butte - rochester journey. i have not yet come across his reply about capacity but i havent worked my way through the thread yet uk example double rail freight reduce road freight by 10%. das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- ... your lack of understanding if repeated in corporate circles explains a lot about how gm and ford got where they are. if the train were efficient it would be utilised to a greater extent than is now the case. ergo it is not efficient therefore it is not utilised. it is very efficient if it is loaded at the point of production and unloaded at the point of use. for instance it is good at carrying coal or ore from a mine to a smelter or power station. it is not efficient if manufactured goods or people have to be loaded and carried to the depot to be loaded onto the train and unloaded at the other end back to other transport to be distributed to the end points such as offices and shops unless these are concentrated in a small area around the end station. ... .

From : max dodge

90% of all freight is cheaper to ship by truck than by rail in the u.s. call and get some qotes. yet another person who confuses economics and cost with energy efficiency. ive explained the difference now its your turn to look it up. you have access to the net do you not -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author thats very odd. so if i add a couple of carriages to an empty train my efficiency goes up hardly but it works well with a fully occupied train. if you missed that point you are more daft than you suppose me to be. would you care to comment on my point about freight after all it is dream of a number of politicians to get juggernauts off the road. i commented plenty on freight traffic by rail. do some research youll find that not only is it far more efficient by rail but that our railroads are investing billions to expand service. 90% of all freight is cheaper to ship by truck than by rail in the u.s. call and get some qotes. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author thats very odd. so if i add a couple of carriages to an empty train my efficiency goes up would you care to comment on my point about freight after all it is dream of a number of politicians to get juggernauts off the road. das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- number of riders isnt a measure of efficiency. capacity per unit of fuel used is the efficency level. ill agree we are not using our rail efficiently that is my point. but it doesnt make cars more efficient than rail just because we drive cars more frequently. ... .

From : max dodge

yes you just do that and ask them after they have been back again and again and seen their friends killed and maimed with no end in sight. to a man they are proud of their work proud of their accomplishments and proud to be in a position to make a difference. all of them can and do go back when called upon to do so largely without complaint. perhaps you should do some research on this before opening your yap via a keyboard. and when exactly will you do as you claimed and plonk my ass so i dont have to hear from you again -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max dodge wrote tell that to the families of the thousands of american military personal killed and maimed there so far. tell it to the tens of thousands of brave soldiers who risk committed bombers who blow themselves up to rid their country of the foreign invaders on a daily basis and who are there for months at a time on several repeated tours of duty because there is not the manpower to relieve them. how about i just ask my friends who have been there yes you just do that and ask them after they have been back again and again and seen their friends killed and maimed with no end in sight. huw .

From : max dodge

your lack of understanding if repeated in corporate circles explains a lot about how gm and ford got where they are. if the train were efficient it would be utilised to a greater extent than is now the case. ergo it is not efficient therefore it is not utilised. wrong plonkmeister. you are still confusing cost effective with energy efficient. it cost less to ship by truck but a train is still more energy efficient. therefore the move to truck from trains was driven by cost not by energy use. my point at the beginning was that we as a nation have failed to choose the correct path in using energy efficient methods. had we chosen rail over truck decades ago we might be in better shape regarding energy resources. it is very efficient if it is loaded at the point of production and unloaded at the point of use. for instance it is good at carrying coal or ore from a mine to a smelter or power station. it is not efficient if manufactured goods or people have to be loaded and carried to the depot to be loaded onto the train and unloaded at the other end back to other transport to be distributed to the end points such as offices and shops unless these are concentrated in a small area around the end station. that is false. once again had the infrastructure and systems been designed with energy use in mind rather than cheapest method my comments on this nations failure to plan would not have been made. as far as passengers go then the car is more energy and cost efficient per passenger mile than the train. there are hardly any people disputing this except you. they may not like it and may have other valid arguments in favour of the train but they do not now dispute this fact. wrong. weve been over this. since your basic premise is false then all your other assertions are equally false. since you have yet to grasp my basic premise you are hardly in a position to judge what it is. am i plonked yet -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max dodge wrote in short rail has a place in the overall transport scheme of things but only a limited one. false. your claims are based on loads and routes that would be catered to had there been or if there is a demand. you are claiming rail service is inefficient due to lack of use. that is false. efficiency is not determined by use but by capacity and capability on a given amount of energy. your lack of understanding if repeated in corporate circles explains a lot about how gm and ford got where they are. if the train were efficient it would be utilised to a greater extent than is now the case. ergo it is not efficient therefore it is not utilised. it is very efficient if it is loaded at the point of production and unloaded at the point of use. for instance it is good at carrying coal or ore from a mine to a smelter or power station. it is not efficient if manufactured goods or people have to be loaded and carried to the depot to be loaded onto the train and unloaded at the other end back to other transport to be distributed to the end points such as offices and shops unless these are concentrated in a small area around the end station. in short rail is far more efficient at moving freight and people than other modes of travel. personal preference dictates what mode is used not efficiency. if rail were pursued as much as our energy use indicates that it should all of the services you mention would exist and at reasonable cost. as far as passengers go then the car is more energy and cost efficient per passenger mile than the train. there are hardly any people disputing this except you. they may not like it and may have other valid arguments in favour of the train but they do not now dispute this fact. fact is most of you would rather spend less money and burn more energy than conserve energy at a slight personal cost while helping both the environment and our resources. since your basic premise is false then all your other assertions are equally false. huw .

From : max dodge

really. here i thought that you were supposed to use capitalization. ohwelliguessiwillwritelikeamoronjustlikeyou. morons like me arent anal retentive about post style and we certainly do not use run on sentences to demonstrate capitalization or lack thereof. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author on sun 29 jan 2006 225759 gmt max dodge max340@verizon.net wrote on sun 29 jan 2006 104505 -0800 theguy theguy@notebook.com wrote i agree with the philosophy but in reality your comment is bs bill. it has not been an open market for a lot of the us industry. foreign industry has had several advantages and help from thier governments that ours have not. you cant have it both ways. either we have an open market and that includes foreign policy from the competing nations governments or we provide the same benefits to our industry that the others have. you can not equalize everything out when the rules are not equal. is your keyboard broke or your brain. ************************* dave top posting ignorance corrected... theguy is on target maybe its your keyboard. really. here i thought that you were supposed to use capitalization. ohwelliguessiwillwritelikeamoronjustlikeyou. ************************* dave .

From : max dodge

at those service intervals they must be nearly as good as european cars then. lol no doubt about it. thought you plonked me -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max dodge wrote so if left for 10000 to 15000 miles as is normal in europe they would not survive mine survive just fine. i have three cars over 100k two over 200k. at those service intervals they must be nearly as good as european cars then. huw .

From : pooh bear

that is not the same as entering the war. at the same time henry ford was investing and developing business in the third reich but i do not claim that it or he entered the war on hitlers side although some would say so. first off entering a theatre of operations does not mean you are at war. simply ask any civilian who attempts to live in a war zone. second a private individual or a business enterprise is not the same as a government. as such your point is moot. prior ot that executive order placed miltary freight on its way to england. thus we supplied britain far before we entered the war. you said it before we entered the war that was not the issue. the issue was what we did prior to 1941. plonk. good to be rid of you. your pointless and fact devoid posts shall not be missed. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max dodge wrote you actually only entered the war when it became obvious that the usa would have to deal with a power greater than itself if britain fell. the penny didnt drop in the pacific until most of the fleet had been sunk at pearl harbour. more rubbish than one bucket can hold. first off lend lease was signed march 11 1941. that is not the same as entering the war. at the same time henry ford was investing and developing business in the third reich but i do not claim that it or he entered the war on hitlers side although some would say so. prior ot that executive order placed miltary freight on its way to england. thus we supplied britain far before we entered the war. you said it before we entered the war plonk. huw .

From : max dodge

max dodge wrote you actually only entered the war when it became obvious that the usa would have to deal with a power greater than itself if britain fell. the penny didnt drop in the pacific until most of the fleet had been sunk at pearl harbour. more rubbish than one bucket can hold. first off lend lease was signed march 11 1941. that is not going to war. graham .

From : pooh bear

tbone wrote tbone wrote there is no way to compete fairly with countries that pay their workers next to nothing its not the *countries* that pay those workers its the factories that employ them. often owned by american companies. americans love low labour costs for cheap imports but only when it doesnt threaten their own jobs. oh. and the european countries are immune to this lol! youre trying to dodge the issue by changing it doesnt fool me. graham .

From : matthew russotto

the design of the critical resonant cavity magnetron to the usa ! see tizard mission. along with the jet engine too later i might add. us radars were almost non-existent in 1941. certainly no airborne ones and i dont think there were any operational naval ones either. and then helping to bolster sagging numbers of airplanes. yeah we did nothing in that effort. a commercial situation too. in any event no significant numbers of us planes arrived in the uk until well after pearl harbor. and lead to the liberation of france. france was liberated by *allied* forces. not just the us. aside from the obvious brits and yanks there were canadians free french poles australians new zealanders indians czechs and many others. yeah but without the u.s. leadership and vast numbers not to mention wartime production and a host of other things no one would have set foot on the continent. youre suggesting that we needed us leadership. stfu ! britain had already survived being in the front line for several years before you guys could even drag your lardy asses over here. yet they seem to know better than we how our military works. youre a lying sack of shit. and you sir are a misguided pompous ass. i think you need to read up on some honest history. graham .

From : pooh bear

whats the efficiency of moving 100 tons of e.g. perishable goods by rail in such a manner that they are no longer usable by the time they make it to their destination none. however if its loaded on a an express train that crosses the nation at considerably higher speeds than are legal on the highway it will encounter little in the way of traffic jams or weather that stops travel. point of fact oysters from the chesapeake bay were once shipped to california arriving fresh in just days. surely if they could do that in the early 1900s railroads can do it now -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max dodge max340@verizon.net wrote in short rail is far more efficient at moving freight and people than other modes of travel. whats the efficiency of moving 100 tons of e.g. perishable goods by rail in such a manner that they are no longer usable by the time they make it to their destination -- theres no such thing as a free lunch but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. .

From : pooh bear

not forgotten simply not considered as entering the european theatre which fmpov didnt occur until germany declared war on the usa. given the miltary method of regionalizing operations regardless of war status it simply makes sense to call it what it is imo. roosevelts vision in the face of public ignorance of the danger that hitler posed to the new world as well as the old is well known and appreciated on this side of the pond as is churchills efforts in what was our darkest hour. in my opinion our nations were fortunate to have not only fdr and churchill but one of the most selfless generations of all time come to the forefront at that time. given the similarities of history then and now i question the wisdom of condemning blair and bush for recent world hostilities. question the motives certainly! but realize that both men are doing what they feel is the best they can do for our nations. it then follows that our forces both american and british are doing the best job possible under very difficult circumstances. we have similar conspiracy theories over here. notably the lusitania in 1915. interesting. i do. a minor colloquial difference led to my misreading of your post which in context does now make sense. to me entering a theatre of war means to be at war which didnt occur until 1941 anyway. no it doesnt just ask our fine government regarding korea police action the serbian conflict peace keepers or somalia aid force. this is of course tongue in cheek. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author well alan i guess you forgot about lend lease destroyers the four stackers as they were called and the huge amounts of supplies and milatary hardware shipped to england from 1939 to 1941 prior to pearl harbor. further i guess you forgot the guys who died on patrol aboard the u.s.s. reuben james in the north atlantic while escorting a convoy. they died as a result of a torpedo attack on the ship with a loss of over 100 men on october 31st 1941. this was just the first of iirc four usn ships sunk prior to war being declared. not forgotten simply not considered as entering the european theatre which fmpov didnt occur until germany declared war on the usa. roosevelts vision in the face of public ignorance of the danger that hitler posed to the new world as well as the old is well known and appreciated on this side of the pond as is churchills efforts in what was our darkest hour. in addition all of these events were part of the reason that there is a theory that fdr conspired to get us into the war. in order to continue sending supplies to england if not increase the amounts it has been supposed that fdr deliberately allowed pearl harbor to occur. we have similar conspiracy theories over here. notably the lusitania in 1915. it fascinates me that not only do you not realize so much was done before wwii started for the u.s. but that you dont know it despite the conspiracy to which the events prior to wwii have given rise. i do. a minor colloquial difference led to my misreading of your post which in context does now make sense. to me entering a theatre of war means to be at war which didnt occur until 1941 anyway. -- alan lehun .

From : pooh bear

max dodge wrote tell that to the families of the thousands of american military personal killed and maimed there so far. tell it to the tens of thousands of brave soldiers who risk committed bombers who blow themselves up to rid their country of the foreign invaders on a daily basis and who are there for months at a time on several repeated tours of duty because there is not the manpower to relieve them. how about i just ask my friends who have been there just the ones who havent been maimed presumably you cant ask the ones who have been killed of course. graham .

From : pooh bear

ramman@dodgecity.cc wrote dripley52@nothisyahoo.com writes whats the average selling price for the new 3500 drw qc with the cummins & an automatic in it msrp theyre about $43. what are folks actually paying for these hows the nav package is it worth $1800 addtl a coworker just bought a *new* 05 3500 srw sb qc with the cummins & an automatic in it for a tad over $25 outright no trade. here in oklahoma city one of the dealers is advertising 10000 off msrp of any 06 dodge 2500/3500 pu in stock if that gives you any indication. john .

From : pooh bear

max dodge wrote european vehicles fare a bit better but by seven years can become cantankerous if not costly to maintain due to nickel and dime stuff that costs ten times as much because its euro design. uh my last uk vauxhall cavalier lasted 180000 miles and 16 yrs without any major parts replacement at all. original clutch afaik too. youre daft if you think maintenance is expensive because of euro design too. graham .

From : pooh bear

alan lehun wrote fortunately when most of the u.s. was opposed to going to war in 1940 we decided to enter the european theatre regardless. that is simply not true. in fact even hollywood would be shamefaced to drift that far from reality. the usaaf didnt arrive in britain until spring 1942. us troops werent fighting in europe untill the invasion of sicily in july 1943. graham .

From : clare at snyder on ca

max dodge wrote and yet we managed to prevent all of europe from speaking german lol! excellent point. im always fascinated by the way people from outside the u.s. criticize our actions. frankly half of us disagree with any given military action. fortunately when most of the u.s. was opposed to going to war in 1940 we decided to enter the european theatre regardless. no you didnt ! you waited til japan bombed pearl harbor over 2 years after the start of ww2. us forces didnt arrive *in the uk* until 1942. this saved england from invasion england was saved from invasion by the battle of britain in which the us played not one single jot. and lead to the liberation of france. france was liberated by *allied* forces. not just the us. aside from the obvious brits and yanks there were canadians free french poles australians new zealanders indians czechs and many others. yet they seem to know better than we how our military works. youre a lying sack of shit. graham .

From : pooh bear

on sun 29 jan 2006 173802 -0000 huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote max dodge wrote none of what you are saying makes much sense. evidence of this is your claim that youd buy fiat peugot and renault. great patronize your government by purchasing known inferior cars. none of those are british and none are actually inferior. gm has just had to pay a huge sum to fiat to get out of a contract it could not afford. have you any experience of those cars millions of satisfied customers run them and i have just bought my first fiat recently to go with my year old range rover and eight year old land cruiser. i am very satisfied with all of them. yes i have experienced fiat fix it again tony - rusted away in less than 4 years and the engine was shot in less than 2 - 1987 fiat 128 l sports coupe. also peugot - 1967 204 wagon. tough little piece of scrap - but not very dependable. to be fair it had a hard life zambia central africa. also renault. 1967 r12 - rallied it for 3 years and couldnt break it. nasty critter to work on but gave me a 432 finish in 3 years on the onnrc. my first car was a 8 year old morris 850 mini that had 196000 miles on it when i rescued it from the scrappy. had a vauxhall too - 1972 viva hc. another tough little car - needed a lot of minor attention but stood up well. my brother had a v

From : theguy

special 1962 and a viva ha 1964 nice cars but rather fragile and underpowered. he lso had a rover tc 2000 - a nice car to drive but a real mechanics nightmare. other brother had a sunbeam sedan for a short time. i owned an old fj45 land cruiser too - now that was a tough truck station wagonand several toyotas.corolla and tercel. they were the best of any vehicles ive owned - somewhere around 26 in number by now. i also drove a series 3 land rover swamper high clearance pickup for a while and a sunbeam alpine gt 1275. meanwhile you extoll the virtues of a free market economy. sorta hypocritical to throw government owned business in at the top of the diatribe fiat is a family owned business and neither of the others are government owned so i am not sure what you are on about. then revert to free market and then claim the u.s. doesnt like a free market. did i say that no. but it is evident that some posters here do not wish it to be a free market when they are less competitive only when they come out top. rather hypocritical dont you think the us government is sticking to free market principles in this case they dont always thinking of steel but it is a few posters here that are arguing that they should put up the shutters. i am saying that it will do them more harm than good. not making sense to you great neither does your essay. then you have a problem. are you a street sweeper or the office coffee maker by any chance huw . 222 311440 43dec2eb.3858e9ec@hotmail.com jay wrote comments4u wrote with job cuts announced on both sides of the atlantic its clear daimler-chrysler is serious about cutting the fat. even more it has announced plans for increased production at the currently hot chrysler unit without additional workers. that is truely cutting the fat. but observers wonder if daimler-chrysler has really identified all its fat. no. its about getting america off its lardy ass and competing at world standard productivity levels. compete or die. the world is hungry for jobs and theres no space for lazy weaklings. graham why is it that toyota is building more factories in the u.s. because it makes sense to build near to the amrket. and making tons of money at its u.s. factories. the toyota plant here in indiana had to add on before it 1st year was up and is still is running at 100% capacity. i think its the uaw that is costing americans jobs. uaw needs to roll over and take from gm ford and chrysler. it seems your uaw has an unrelistic idea of its members value. graham .

From : dori a schmetterling

huw wrote thom wrote actually the reason the us is so tough on cars is the fact that most people do not take care of their cars. they expect them to work all the time no matter how deficient their maintenance upkeep. and there were we readers of these forums being misled into thinking us cars had their oils changed every 3000 to 5000 miles while we europeans serviced our cars every 10000 to 15000 miles. lol theres a difference between modern synthetic oils and the dino-oil so popular in the us. graham .

From : theguy

on tue 31 jan 2006 013045 +0000 pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote huw wrote matthew t. russotto wrote pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote comments4u wrote with job cuts announced on both sides of the atlantic its clear daimler-chrysler is serious about cutting the fat. even more it has announced plans for increased production at the currently hot chrysler unit without additional workers. that is truely cutting the fat. but observers wonder if daimler-chrysler has really identified all its fat. no. its about getting america off its lardy ass and competing at world standard productivity levels. why should america reduce its productivity levels quite correct. i dont think there is anything wrong with productivity levels which are as good as anywhere. fine. do nothing then ! graham i dont know about the rest of you but it is hard to get excited about arguing with a guy that calls himself pooh bear. lmfao i mean come on pooh bear hey nighty nite pooh bear. .

From : pooh bear

in the usa that is... das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- actually a lot of roads particularly freeways have fairly gotty surfaces. and then they have these concrete slabs. sounds a bit like being on a train with old tracks with expansion spaces. nevetheless i still dont think one would compare with poor countries. das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- ... like taking those nice straight roads that go on for miles and miles yes of course conditions vary from place to place in the same way europe varies from finland down to swizerland to hungary down again to the bottom of italy. european cars have no problem in these varied conditions and neither is there a problem with a polish built car run in sardinia which is as much of a contrast in conditions as you will get anywhere. you really should get out more. huw .

From : theguy

on mon 30 jan 2006 200900 -0500 roy roy@home.net wrote on sun 29 jan 2006 155307 -0500 roy roy@home.net wrote well maybe if you werent used to getting paid $40 an hour to sweep floors you could deal with getting what normal people get for the same job. it dosent matter how much per hour a person gets. how about you monday go to work and go to your boss and tell him you want to give up 25% of your pay and some of your benifits. i doubt that will happen. but your pretty free to toss other peoples wages around. well duh. i dont get $40 bucks an hour to sweep floors. it isnt so much that people want unions to accept pay cuts as you should never have got what you are getting. right! the guy sweeping the floor walked in and demanded $40 @hour to sweep the floor. son of a bitch! he got it! take me there will ya you allegedly work for the auto unions so if you arent getting paid that much to sweep the floor it must be because you get paid to sleep. you should probably learn to follow a thread before posting to it. doing so will save you from looking like a total fool. normally you would be right. but this is dave he is pretty much a fool to start with. ************************* dave .

From : theguy

on tue 31 jan 2006 010844 +0000 pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote tbone wrote and yet we managed to prevent all of europe from speaking german lol! you do talk some astonishing drivel. graham well we should listen to you on this one graham. i mean you seem to be an expert on drivel. .

From : dori a schmetterling

dripley52@nothisyahoo.com writes whats the average selling price for the new 3500 drw qc with the cummins & an automatic in it msrp theyre about $43. what are folks actually paying for these hows the nav package is it worth $1800 addtl a coworker just bought a *new* 05 3500 srw sb qc with the cummins & an automatic in it for a tad over $25 outright no trade. .

From : theguy

weve got the article without ads in pdf format if anyone wants it. let me know and i can put it up on a relay site where you can download it. tbonenospam@nc.rr.com writes my buddy has the 2005 so perhaps he will be more fortunate. he already just had problems with a defective sensor that kept telling him he had water in his fuel but ford replaced it and changed the filters no charge. i will print out this article and give it to him. thanks again max. .

From : tom lawrence

on mon 30 jan 2006 181510 -0600 dtj none@nowhere.com wrote on mon 30 jan 2006 114634 -0600 bob m ram1220@vzavenue.net wrote you know i have sat here and read this thread and so far i have remained silent. but i am sick and tired of huws america bashing. huw huw is who i figured everyone plonked his chink ass a long time ago. ************************* dave wow. very rude and totally obnoxious. but then since it came from dave no one is at all surprised. .

From : theguy

on mon 30 jan 2006 180913 -0600 dtj none@nowhere.com wrote on mon 30 jan 2006 035707 gmt tom lawrence tnloaswpraemnmcien5g@earthlink.net wrote can some one explain to me why people have such a bug up their butt about top-posting i find it much more convenient when reading through a thread... do you read books starting at the end too only top posters do. no and i dont read page 1 then page 1-2 then page 1-3 1-4 etc. when reading down through a thread its helpful to ignore all the crap that ive already read... exactly. which is why there are three forms of posting one of which is unacceptable. geez dave. you really are hung up on rules. you are one fucked up up tight guy. the first method is bottom posting. it is very acceptable as long as the poster is not a moron and he/she understand how to snip irrelevant portions. the second method is inline posting. that is what i did above. something top posters cant understand. the last method and the only unacceptable one was propagated on usenet by the idiot programmers at microsoft and is called top posting. top posters are too fucking stupid to understand that nobody has any clue what they are talking about until they read the entire unsnipped post below. nobody does this so after a while top posters are only replying to each other because all intelligent posters plonk them within a few posts. ************************* dave .

From : theguy

unsnipped post below. nobody does this so after a while top posters are only replying to each other because all intelligent posters plonk them within a few posts. okay... i dont personally do it because i also like to edit out irrelevant parts. i just dont get my nuts in a vise over it and predict the downfall of human civilization when someone puts their comments at the top. thanks for the education... .

From : christopher thompson

on mon 30 jan 2006 180912 -0600 dtj none@nowhere.com wrote on sun 29 jan 2006 152115 -0800 theguy theguy@notebook.com wrote i agree with the philosophy but in reality your comment is bs bill. it has not been an open market for a lot of the us industry. foreign industry has had several advantages and help from thier governments that ours have not. you cant have it both ways. either we have an open market and that includes foreign policy from the competing nations governments or we provide the same benefits to our industry that the others have. you can not equalize everything out when the rules are not equal. is your keyboard broke or your brain. ************************* dave perfectly stupid answer dave to go along with a perfectly stupid thread. at any rate what the fuck are you talking about over. wellifyouaretoostupidtofuckingknowhowtowriteasentencecorrectlytheniwontbotherreadingyourbullshitbutthenagainyouprobablyaretoostupidtoreadthisanyhow ************************* dave dave you seem to have trouble telling one convention from another. i dont use capitals. you left out all spaces. different anomolies. just thought id let you know since you seem to be so incredibly fucking stupid that i am not at all sure that you knew that. .

From : pooh bear

on mon 30 jan 2006 180912 -0600 dtj none@nowhere.com wrote on sun 29 jan 2006 225759 gmt max dodge max340@verizon.net wrote on sun 29 jan 2006 104505 -0800 theguy theguy@notebook.com wrote i agree with the philosophy but in reality your comment is bs bill. it has not been an open market for a lot of the us industry. foreign industry has had several advantages and help from thier governments that ours have not. you cant have it both ways. either we have an open market and that includes foreign policy from the competing nations governments or we provide the same benefits to our industry that the others have. you can not equalize everything out when the rules are not equal. is your keyboard broke or your brain. ************************* dave top posting ignorance corrected... theguy is on target maybe its your keyboard. really. here i thought that you were supposed to use capitalization. ohwelliguessiwillwritelikeamoronjustlikeyou. ************************* dave well dave i guess i could apologize to you for not using proper convention. i guess i could tell you that i am sorry that without capitals you seem to have trouble reading coharently. but you know what i wont because i really dont give a shit that you are such a moron that you cant read without everything being perfectly formatted i really really dont give even half a fuck that you are such an uptight dip shit that capitals mean that much to you. geez dave it really must suck to be you or for that matter to have to listen to you. thank goodness i only have to deal with the latter. anyway enjoy being the grammar police you fucking twit. .

From : roy

wow!!!! we down to jabbin at my programs now -- -chris 05 ctd 99 durango on sun 29 jan 2006 212747 -0500 christopher thompson kf4drr@alltel.net wrote you may not know this but there are actually good quality readers out there and outhouse express isnt one of them. on sun 29 jan 2006 140815 -0500 christopher thompson kf4drr@alltel.net wrote ok so you mean to tell me the crude oil admitting its a non renuable resource that we will eventually run out of show how it is non renewable. i assume that is what you meant. crude oil is a fossil fuel and takes what millions of years to make natually who knows but whether it takes a week or billions of years it is renewable. it isnt like they taught you in grade school - oil did not just come from dinosaurs. ************************* dave .

From : dori a schmetterling

on sun 29 jan 2006 155307 -0500 roy roy@home.net wrote well maybe if you werent used to getting paid $40 an hour to sweep floors you could deal with getting what normal people get for the same job. it dosent matter how much per hour a person gets. how about you monday go to work and go to your boss and tell him you want to give up 25% of your pay and some of your benifits. i doubt that will happen. but your pretty free to toss other peoples wages around. well duh. i dont get $40 bucks an hour to sweep floors. it isnt so much that people want unions to accept pay cuts as you should never have got what you are getting. right! the guy sweeping the floor walked in and demanded $40 @hour to sweep the floor. son of a bitch! he got it! take me there will ya you allegedly work for the auto unions so if you arent getting paid that much to sweep the floor it must be because you get paid to sleep. you should probably learn to follow a thread before posting to it. doing so will save you from looking like a total fool. ************************* dave .

From : huw

ill try one more time trains are viable only on few routes in every country. the whole point is that trains carry very light loads in many places if a frequent service is maintained for those few people who care to travel. re freight you havent addressed the real-world situation. once again example butte - rochester in the usa. sure carrying 1000 tons of coal a thousand miles from railhead to railhead is efficient. but thats hardly the bulk of the freight carried. das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- ... hardly but it works well with a fully occupied train. if you missed that point you are more daft than you suppose me to be. i commented plenty on freight traffic by rail. do some research youll find that not only is it far more efficient by rail but that our railroads are investing billions to expand service. ... .

From : huw

i shall just add that ol max dodge failed to comment on the butte - rochester journey. i have not yet come across his reply about capacity but i havent worked my way through the thread yet uk example double rail freight reduce road freight by 10%. das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- ... your lack of understanding if repeated in corporate circles explains a lot about how gm and ford got where they are. if the train were efficient it would be utilised to a greater extent than is now the case. ergo it is not efficient therefore it is not utilised. it is very efficient if it is loaded at the point of production and unloaded at the point of use. for instance it is good at carrying coal or ore from a mine to a smelter or power station. it is not efficient if manufactured goods or people have to be loaded and carried to the depot to be loaded onto the train and unloaded at the other end back to other transport to be distributed to the end points such as offices and shops unless these are concentrated in a small area around the end station. ... .

From : huw

dtj wrote yes but who cares. look for real american manufacturers like toyota and honda. ford and gm cant make good cars to save their jobs. to an extent the same is true in europe. the domestically built japanese branded cars are excellent. not all of them are exciting innovative nice to drive or perfect but they are well built and long lasting while being durable and reliable in their respective classes. this has dragged the quality of european brands up because they have to be competitive to survive. over the last few years ford have actually been building really good cars like the focus and the mondeo instead of the rubbish they built pre mid 90s. it is ironic that such a good car as the mondeo is now actually outsold by a premium model such as the bmw 3 series though. maybe thay left it too late to build good cars this is one reason perhaps the only reason that aquiring premium brands like land rover jaguar and volvo was so important to ford. they could see that a majority of customers in europe were willing to pay a premium for a badge and for style as well as build and dynamic quality. it is most unfortunate that the uk pound is so strong in relation to a weak dollar which is detrimental to two of these brands profitability for ford. huw .

From : huw

dtj wrote on mon 30 jan 2006 114634 -0600 bob m ram1220@vzavenue.net wrote you know i have sat here and read this thread and so far i have remained silent. but i am sick and tired of huws america bashing. huw huw is who i figured everyone plonked his chink ass a long time ago. nothing is more telling. all your assumptions are wrong. it cannot be good for your self esteem. huw .

From : huw

alan lehun wrote well alan i guess you forgot about lend lease destroyers the four stackers as they were called and the huge amounts of supplies and milatary hardware shipped to england from 1939 to 1941 prior to pearl harbor. further i guess you forgot the guys who died on patrol aboard the u.s.s. reuben james in the north atlantic while escorting a convoy. they died as a result of a torpedo attack on the ship with a loss of over 100 men on october 31st 1941. this was just the first of iirc four usn ships sunk prior to war being declared. not forgotten simply not considered as entering the european theatre which fmpov didnt occur until germany declared war on the usa. roosevelts vision in the face of public ignorance of the danger that hitler posed to the new world as well as the old is well known and appreciated on this side of the pond as is churchills efforts in what was our darkest hour. indeed. huw .

From : dtj

on mon 30 jan 2006 133530 -0600 russotto@grace.speakeasy.net matthew t. russotto wrote with job cuts announced on both sides of the atlantic its clear daimler-chrysler is serious about cutting the fat. even more it has announced plans for increased production at the currently hot chrysler unit without additional workers. that is truely cutting the fat. but observers wonder if daimler-chrysler has really identified all its fat. no. its about getting america off its lardy ass and competing at world standard productivity levels. why should america reduce its productivity levels - ************************* dave .

From : alan lehun

on mon 30 jan 2006 190338 -0000 dori a schmetterling ng@nospam.co.uk wrote for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- ... curious then that where cars do take a real pouding such as in india the locally made padmini is a fiat dericative and in many middle eastern and african countries that peugeots stand up well to the task. graham top posting corrected... and can peugeot diesel engines not take their place at/near the top of the reliability tree das looks like another one for the kill filter... ************************* dave .

From : guenter scholz

thats very odd. so if i add a couple of carriages to an empty train my efficiency goes up hardly but it works well with a fully occupied train. if you missed that point you are more daft than you suppose me to be. would you care to comment on my point about freight after all it is dream of a number of politicians to get juggernauts off the road. i commented plenty on freight traffic by rail. do some research youll find that not only is it far more efficient by rail but that our railroads are investing billions to expand service. 90% of all freight is cheaper to ship by truck than by rail in the u.s. call and get some qotes. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author thats very odd. so if i add a couple of carriages to an empty train my efficiency goes up would you care to comment on my point about freight after all it is dream of a number of politicians to get juggernauts off the road. das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- number of riders isnt a measure of efficiency. capacity per unit of fuel used is the efficency level. ill agree we are not using our rail efficiently that is my point. but it doesnt make cars more efficient than rail just because we drive cars more frequently. ... .

From : huw

max dodge wrote in short rail has a place in the overall transport scheme of things but only a limited one. false. your claims are based on loads and routes that would be catered to had there been or if there is a demand. you are claiming rail service is inefficient due to lack of use. that is false. efficiency is not determined by use but by capacity and capability on a given amount of energy. your lack of understanding if repeated in corporate circles explains a lot about how gm and ford got where they are. if the train were efficient it would be utilised to a greater extent than is now the case. ergo it is not efficient therefore it is not utilised. it is very efficient if it is loaded at the point of production and unloaded at the point of use. for instance it is good at carrying coal or ore from a mine to a smelter or power station. it is not efficient if manufactured goods or people have to be loaded and carried to the depot to be loaded onto the train and unloaded at the other end back to other transport to be distributed to the end points such as offices and shops unless these are concentrated in a small area around the end station. in short rail is far more efficient at moving freight and people than other modes of travel. personal preference dictates what mode is used not efficiency. if rail were pursued as much as our energy use indicates that it should all of the services you mention would exist and at reasonable cost. as far as passengers go then the car is more energy and cost efficient per passenger mile than the train. there are hardly any people disputing this except you. they may not like it and may have other valid arguments in favour of the train but they do not now dispute this fact. fact is most of you would rather spend less money and burn more energy than conserve energy at a slight personal cost while helping both the environment and our resources. since your basic premise is false then all your other assertions are equally false. huw .

From : dtj

well alan i guess you forgot about lend lease destroyers the four stackers as they were called and the huge amounts of supplies and milatary hardware shipped to england from 1939 to 1941 prior to pearl harbor. further i guess you forgot the guys who died on patrol aboard the u.s.s. reuben james in the north atlantic while escorting a convoy. they died as a result of a torpedo attack on the ship with a loss of over 100 men on october 31st 1941. this was just the first of iirc four usn ships sunk prior to war being declared. not forgotten simply not considered as entering the european theatre which fmpov didnt occur until germany declared war on the usa. roosevelts vision in the face of public ignorance of the danger that hitler posed to the new world as well as the old is well known and appreciated on this side of the pond as is churchills efforts in what was our darkest hour. in addition all of these events were part of the reason that there is a theory that fdr conspired to get us into the war. in order to continue sending supplies to england if not increase the amounts it has been supposed that fdr deliberately allowed pearl harbor to occur. we have similar conspiracy theories over here. notably the lusitania in 1915. it fascinates me that not only do you not realize so much was done before wwii started for the u.s. but that you dont know it despite the conspiracy to which the events prior to wwii have given rise. i do. a minor colloquial difference led to my misreading of your post which in context does now make sense. to me entering a theatre of war means to be at war which didnt occur until 1941 anyway. -- alan lehun .

From : dtj

on mon 30 jan 2006 074500 -0800 scott en aztln scottenaztlan@yahoonospam.com wrote on mon 30 jan 2006 132051 gmt tom lawrence tnloaswpraemnmcien5g@earthlink.net wrote sensible trimming fixes that as per my post . yep... and of course everyone does that right re-read the original post - people who fail to trim their quoted text properly are every bit as bad a top-posters. in fact posters often commit both offenses in the same post they hit reply type in their response at the top of the edit buffer and then hit send - their quoted text comes along as unneeded excess bandwidth-wasting baggage. oh but scott didnt you read the top posting bullshit about how everyone now has a 20gb connection and we have 900 terrabyte drives on every one of the billion servers that giga has. come now why should we be concerned with waste. we are americans by god!!!! ************************* dave .

From : dtj

on mon 30 jan 2006 035707 gmt tom lawrence tnloaswpraemnmcien5g@earthlink.net wrote can some one explain to me why people have such a bug up their butt about top-posting i find it much more convenient when reading through a thread... do you read books starting at the end too only top posters do. no and i dont read page 1 then page 1-2 then page 1-3 1-4 etc. when reading down through a thread its helpful to ignore all the crap that ive already read... exactly. which is why there are three forms of posting one of which is unacceptable. the first method is bottom posting. it is very acceptable as long as the poster is not a moron and he/she understand how to snip irrelevant portions. the second method is inline posting. that is what i did above. something top posters cant understand. the last method and the only unacceptable one was propagated on usenet by the idiot programmers at microsoft and is called top posting. top posters are too fucking stupid to understand that nobody has any clue what they are talking about until they read the entire unsnipped post below. nobody does this so after a while top posters are only replying to each other because all intelligent posters plonk them within a few posts. ************************* dave .

From : huw

like i said before i am not saying youre wrong i just dont personally see it but since you do this type of work and i never have... lucifer just put on his ear muffs.... .

From : max dodge

fortunately when most of the u.s. was opposed to going to war in 1940 we decided to enter the european theatre regardless. that is simply not true. in fact even hollywood would be shamefaced to drift that far from reality. -- alan lehun .

From : nowitswhatever

take advantage of a great deal .

From : rachel easson

yes they are much stronger here. we see reports all the time where workers are complaining of low pay less than 50000us. heck an old landlord of mine was making 29 bucks an hour installing wheels on the cars!!! he got the raises due to seniority only not skill or competency. he laughed about it it was a great gig while it lasted. .

From : huw

actually a lot of roads particularly freeways have fairly gotty surfaces. and then they have these concrete slabs. sounds a bit like being on a train with old tracks with expansion spaces. nevetheless i still dont think one would compare with poor countries. das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- ... like taking those nice straight roads that go on for miles and miles yes of course conditions vary from place to place in the same way europe varies from finland down to swizerland to hungary down again to the bottom of italy. european cars have no problem in these varied conditions and neither is there a problem with a polish built car run in sardinia which is as much of a contrast in conditions as you will get anywhere. you really should get out more. huw .

From : huw

on 30 jan 2006 054859 -0800 budd cochran mr-d150@preciscom.net wrote at least my friends wont sting me in a heartbeat. vbg budd thats just my girls kissing me. beekeep .

From : dtj

max dodge wrote tell that to the families of the thousands of american military personal killed and maimed there so far. tell it to the tens of thousands of brave soldiers who risk committed bombers who blow themselves up to rid their country of the foreign invaders on a daily basis and who are there for months at a time on several repeated tours of duty because there is not the manpower to relieve them. how about i just ask my friends who have been there yes you just do that and ask them after they have been back again and again and seen their friends killed and maimed with no end in sight. huw .

From : dtj

max dodge wrote you actually only entered the war when it became obvious that the usa would have to deal with a power greater than itself if britain fell. the penny didnt drop in the pacific until most of the fleet had been sunk at pearl harbour. more rubbish than one bucket can hold. first off lend lease was signed march 11 1941. that is not the same as entering the war. at the same time henry ford was investing and developing business in the third reich but i do not claim that it or he entered the war on hitlers side although some would say so. prior ot that executive order placed miltary freight on its way to england. thus we supplied britain far before we entered the war. you said it before we entered the war plonk. huw .

From : jay

on mon 30 jan 2006 114634 -0600 bob m ram1220@vzavenue.net wrote you know i have sat here and read this thread and so far i have remained silent. but i am sick and tired of huws america bashing. huw huw is who i figured everyone plonked his chink ass a long time ago. ************************* dave .

From : dtj

alan lehun zzusn01@lehun.clara.co.uk wrote the usa didnt enter the war they were dragged into it. by roosevelt or churchill cheers .

From : huw

dori a schmetterling wrote this nugget btw was mentioned on bbc tv top gear a few months ago with some glee as you might imagine... unfortunately they did not give details of the report and who published it. i seldom watch it and did not see that episode. huw .

From : max dodge

max dodge wrote and there were we readers of these forums being misled into thinking us cars had their oils changed every 3000 to 5000 miles while we europeans serviced our cars every 10000 to 15000 miles. lol as thom suggested it varies by owner. so if left for 10000 to 15000 miles as is normal in europe they would not survive huw .

From : dtj

on mon 30 jan 2006 004313 -0000 alan lehun try@reply.to wrote current average productivity in the european automotive industry is about 66 cars per employee per year. how do the states compare ill bite on this claim as soon as you provide a cite that explains the claim. you are right to question my claim. apparently its only 61 cars per employee per year. http//www.manufacturingtalk.com//woa/woa101.html i guarantee you mercedes production is far less more like 20 employees per car per year. this may be true but not entirely relevant to the health of the american and european automotive industries which are far more dependant on the high volume manufacturers/models. yes it is relevant. averages mean shit. if you are including pieces of shit of lesser quality than american made cars such as the honda accord than of course the number made would be higher than honda. the honda accord is a big seller and is therefore important. i wasnt having a dig or anything. the productivity figure is important in understanding the business forces that dictate where cars are made although there are of course many others. but my point is that there are a lot of really shitty cars made in the world and if you compare the number made per employee to the number of accords made it is not an appropriate comparison. the large number of japanese manufacturers in europe is a direct result of protectionist policies set in place which limited the number of japanese imports. the japanese of course didnt let a little thing like that stop them. although japanese productivity is iirc over 90 cars pepy it is also true to say that europes current impressive figures are a direct result of the japanese coming here. yes because complacency was paramount until the japanese began selling better quality cars. without some data your claims are useless. ive given you a recent press release of the world market research report. http//www.ftmastering.com/mmo/mmo071.htm will give some historical data which might scare you. in 1999 toyota were doing well with 31 cpepy. ive also just found http//www.frbatlanta.org/invoke.cfmobjectid=ff0566ba-5056-9f06- 99814ef979b2cb50&method=display http//tinyurl.com/8wv9b which provides some us figures that i was looking for. average 47.7 but some plants higher than 70 including the ford plant in hapeville ga. at 102. wow. yes but who cares. look for real american manufacturers like toyota and honda. ford and gm cant make good cars to save their jobs. ************************* dave .

From : dtj

on sun 29 jan 2006 212747 -0500 christopher thompson kf4drr@alltel.net wrote you may not know this but there are actually good quality readers out there and outhouse express isnt one of them. on sun 29 jan 2006 140815 -0500 christopher thompson kf4drr@alltel.net wrote ok so you mean to tell me the crude oil admitting its a non renuable resource that we will eventually run out of show how it is non renewable. i assume that is what you meant. crude oil is a fossil fuel and takes what millions of years to make natually who knows but whether it takes a week or billions of years it is renewable. it isnt like they taught you in grade school - oil did not just come from dinosaurs. ************************* dave .

From : dtj

on sun 29 jan 2006 225759 gmt max dodge max340@verizon.net wrote on sun 29 jan 2006 104505 -0800 theguy theguy@notebook.com wrote i agree with the philosophy but in reality your comment is bs bill. it has not been an open market for a lot of the us industry. foreign industry has had several advantages and help from thier governments that ours have not. you cant have it both ways. either we have an open market and that includes foreign policy from the competing nations governments or we provide the same benefits to our industry that the others have. you can not equalize everything out when the rules are not equal. is your keyboard broke or your brain. ************************* dave top posting ignorance corrected... theguy is on target maybe its your keyboard. really. here i thought that you were supposed to use capitalization. ohwelliguessiwillwritelikeamoronjustlikeyou. ************************* dave .

From : max dodge

on sun 29 jan 2006 152115 -0800 theguy theguy@notebook.com wrote i agree with the philosophy but in reality your comment is bs bill. it has not been an open market for a lot of the us industry. foreign industry has had several advantages and help from thier governments that ours have not. you cant have it both ways. either we have an open market and that includes foreign policy from the competing nations governments or we provide the same benefits to our industry that the others have. you can not equalize everything out when the rules are not equal. is your keyboard broke or your brain. ************************* dave perfectly stupid answer dave to go along with a perfectly stupid thread. at any rate what the fuck are you talking about over. wellifyouaretoostupidtofuckingknowhowtowriteasentencecorrectlytheniwontbotherreadingyourbullshitbutthenagainyouprobablyaretoostupidtoreadthisanyhow ************************* dave .

From : huw

on sun 29 jan 2006 155307 -0500 roy roy@home.net wrote well maybe if you werent used to getting paid $40 an hour to sweep floors you could deal with getting what normal people get for the same job. it dosent matter how much per hour a person gets. how about you monday go to work and go to your boss and tell him you want to give up 25% of your pay and some of your benifits. i doubt that will happen. but your pretty free to toss other peoples wages around. well duh. i dont get $40 bucks an hour to sweep floors. it isnt so much that people want unions to accept pay cuts as you should never have got what you are getting. right! the guy sweeping the floor walked in and demanded $40 @hour to sweep the floor. son of a bitch! he got it! take me there will ya you allegedly work for the auto unions so if you arent getting paid that much to sweep the floor it must be because you get paid to sleep. ************************* dave .

From : huw

so if left for 10000 to 15000 miles as is normal in europe they would not survive mine survive just fine. i have three cars over 100k two over 200k. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max dodge wrote and there were we readers of these forums being misled into thinking us cars had their oils changed every 3000 to 5000 miles while we europeans serviced our cars every 10000 to 15000 miles. lol as thom suggested it varies by owner. so if left for 10000 to 15000 miles as is normal in europe they would not survive huw .

From : huw

max dodge wrote even in the range rover they would cost only 440 or 110 each which is cheaper than the same four would travel by train. you are confusing personal cost with energy efficiency. until you figure out the difference you wont see the error of your thinking. further you seem to be more interested in insulting others rather than thinking about facts. the fact is that trains use more fuel per passenger mile than cars. this takes into account the amount of waste by trains moving rolling stock to where it is next needed. on top of this is the fuel used by the average commuter just getting from home and back to and from the station. if trains were more energy efficient than cars they could easily compete with the cost of running a car as an alternative. they would not even need fuel that was subsidised in the uk to a tenth of the price of car fuel and neither would they need huge amounts of public money on top. this is a reference to us energy efficiency which does not take account of rolling stock logistics which is well known to be a significant amount of traffic which demands energy which is 0% efficient. in other words it should be added to energy use figures for fuel used per passenger mile. http//www.lafn.org/dave/trans/rail/railenergy.html huw .

From : max dodge

max dodge wrote i am entertained by the idea that driving conditions in the usa are tougher than in the third world... and that inter-regional variation within the us is so great. oh man you should get out more. yes i know california isnt arizona isnt vermont weatherwise but still. perhaps you should get out more if you feel that the u.s. is all one set of driving conditions. maybe next time you arrive on our shores you should go farther than the local taxi takes you which is to say leave the city behind and forget about the pubs. like taking those nice straight roads that go on for miles and miles yes of course conditions vary from place to place in the same way europe varies from finland down to swizerland to hungary down again to the bottom of italy. european cars have no problem in these varied conditions and neither is there a problem with a polish built car run in sardinia which is as much of a contrast in conditions as you will get anywhere. you really should get out more. huw .

From : huw

you actually only entered the war when it became obvious that the usa would have to deal with a power greater than itself if britain fell. the penny didnt drop in the pacific until most of the fleet had been sunk at pearl harbour. more rubbish than one bucket can hold. first off lend lease was signed march 11 1941. prior ot that executive order placed miltary freight on its way to england. thus we supplied britain far before we entered the war. second we entered the war not because we saw britain in danger but because we were attacked. funny how we get pissed about that sort of thing. it was enough for us to supply gb with aid and funding some $50billion at the time. as to pearl harbor most of the fleet was not sunk on december 7th. not only were the carriers at sea but iirc less than 10% of the ships anchored in the harbor were sunk. if 10% is most then certainly you are correct. obviously most of the world has a different idea of most. more importantly pearl harbor and its infrastructure were not significantly damaged. in fact in less than six months the sunk fleet so severely damaged the japanese fleet that yamamoto knew he had been correct in his predictions of eventual failure for japan. you people should really try reading a little bit. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max dodge wrote and yet we managed to prevent all of europe from speaking german lol! excellent point. im always fascinated by the way people from outside the u.s. criticize our actions. frankly half of us disagree with any given military action. fortunately when most of the u.s. was opposed to going to war in 1940 we decided to enter the european theatre regardless. this saved england from invasion and lead to the liberation of france. you actually only entered the war when it became obvious that the usa would have to deal with a power greater than itself if britain fell. the penny didnt drop in the pacific until most of the fleet had been sunk at pearl harbour. yet they seem to know better than we how our military works. it is hard to imagine that the average american has the slightest more idea of how their military work than anyone anywhere but others could take a step back dispassionately and see what was happening in vietnam. it is also fairly obvious what is happening now in iraq and the gung-ho talk of whooping chinese asses by some here is a reasoning that is a fair way removed from reality. one has to see beyond the militarist rhetoric. face it your military power is not capable even if the government chose to do so. and why should it be capable military action should be a last resort in defence not as an invading force on a power that was no doubt sympathetic to bin laden but was no real threat to the usa. there are now a hell of a lot more enemies of the west than ever before and with no end in sight for your stretched military or for peace in iraq. hammas a terrorist organisation has just won free and fair election in palestine. this would not have happened without a greatly increased animosity towards the west. huw .

From : alan lehun

tell that to the families of the thousands of american military personal killed and maimed there so far. tell it to the tens of thousands of brave soldiers who risk committed bombers who blow themselves up to rid their country of the foreign invaders on a daily basis and who are there for months at a time on several repeated tours of duty because there is not the manpower to relieve them. how about i just ask my friends who have been there -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max dodge wrote the us military cant even cope with iraq. that depends directly on who is doing the reporting. tell that to the families of the thousands of american military personal killed and maimed there so far. tell it to the tens of thousands of brave soldiers who risk committed bombers who blow themselves up to rid their country of the foreign invaders on a daily basis and who are there for months at a time on several repeated tours of duty because there is not the manpower to relieve them. huw .

From : max dodge

max dodge wrote perhaps you think that is a real pounding but reality tells me that use in the states can be very harsh to a car that isnt designed here in the states. lol. yes you find it funny i find it sad. in general an asian designed vehicle will last maybe five years without major needs. used to be that inside of three years an asian made vehicle would rust badly which is to say holes through the metal. perhaps now that they are built here that is solved. that is at variance to what i hear on the mainly right wing american posters on alt.autos.toyota where there is only one decenting voice to the overwhelming majority who believe both toyota and honda are leagues ahead in reliability and longevity compared with domestic cars. rust has been a thing of the past on japanese built vehicles that have been imported here in the last 15 years. there was a time in the 1970s that they developed bodywork holes you could put your fist through within five years. that is historical and not representative of recent products. european vehicles fare a bit better but by seven years can become cantankerous if not costly to maintain due to nickel and dime stuff that costs ten times as much because its euro design. mass sellers always have cheaper parts. if european cars sold in enough numbers the parts prices would reduce in the same way that seldom needed japanese parts have. yeah right! i weigh 300lbs and have never had a problem. i have never even heard of problems with cars due to weight of cargo although i do know of one ford mondeo that has settled on its springs a bit after 200000 miles. a new set of springs would see it back as new. well then you must be fairly ignorant on load capacity of vehicles. i am aware that huge american vehicles have a very low payload in relation to their size and weight compared to european vehicles but that is only a symptom of poor design by the big american manufacturers. could it be that some of their problems and decreasing market share is related to poor and profligate design toyota is going to overtake gm this year in volume terms. in profitability it has overtaken gm long ago and customer retention is very high which is a prerecuisite of increasing sales. so you are saying now that it is easier on the car in the states. certainly long distances are infinitely easier than the narrow twisty lanes we have in europe although our freeways generally have average speeds of 80mph or so. no long distances are not easier. quite the opposite they create another type of hazard to longevity that of heat and wear. you are ignorant of wear factors affecting automobiles. a car reaches its operating temperature and wear is minimised. thus our larger engines tend to do better than the smaller engines from elsewhere. tell that to the owners of toyota and all the other japanese vehicles who consistently lead reliability and longevity ratings all over the world. your freeways are driven at like speeds to ours. is that so a whole lot of your country has a55mpg limit while ours is an universally ignored 70mph. italy is inhabited by looney drivers and germany has no speed limits on some roads. i know of one owner of a british built mclaren there who regularly drives at over 200mph on his commute. here in the uk speeds are generally kept down to 90mph or so because the driving license is lost if speeds exceed 100. this is not to say that our vehicles are better or worse than any other simply that design follows use. thus cars designed in the country where the designer uses them will fare better in that country. heard it all before about various cars trucks plant machinery and everything and it is bollocks. japanese and exotic european cars would not be so successful in america if this were true. fact is the big american barges and smaller cars that just dont drive as well as japanese and european cars are like dinasaurs out of time. this is the reason ford and gm are in such a hole. still easier on a car. in africa half the distances would be on unmetalled roads and similarly in india and pakistan. have you watched the and seen what driving conditions are like there have you seen where we drive here i guarantee imports wont survive the same type of road here in the states. i know because weve done our share of driving other stuff and it just doesnt do as well as american iron when it comes to rough roads. i see far more 1980s chrysler 2.2 powered stuff than i do any other makers 1980s vintage stuff. a rough second place would be chevy cavaliers. the only other that would place would be the toyota 22r engine mostly in celicas. however lately those are rare too. too bad i actually liked those. add to this that our fuel has traditionally been cheaper and you have yet another reason we drive a lot. i fail to see how driving a lot is relevant exce

From : max dodge

looks like 40 x 50. that thing is huge. 32x56 actually... shoulda went 40 deep... and shoulda went another bay wide. coming from a single 12x20 garage i thought the new one would be way bigger than i needed. bzzzzt! wrong... did you have to have anything special done to the floor when it was poured to deal with the lifts especially the 2 post one eagle as well as most other lift companies was a minimum of 4 of 3500psi concrete. i had a 3500psi mix with a 4 slab wire re-inforced but the guys doing the floor dug out around where the columns were going to be placed so ive got a little over 6 of concrete under the posts in a roughly oval shape about 4 wide by about 6 long. it probably would have been fine with a 4 slab throughout but they wanted to make sure i didnt have any problems. i wasnt going to argue we also planned for the columns so the expansion joints that were cut into the slab didnt run under or anywhere near the columns. .

From : max dodge

says... you actually only entered the war when it became obvious that the usa would have to deal with a power greater than itself if britain fell. the penny didnt drop in the pacific until most of the fleet had been sunk at pearl harbour. actually japan declared war on the usa followed days later by germany. the usa didnt enter the war they were dragged into it. -- alan lehun .

From : theguy

i did not get that but never mind that now. tomorrow morning i am scheduled to go out of the country for a few days so wont have access to ngs and i am not that dedicated to look at google groups... although driveable about 8 h via channel tunnel i decided to use an airbus vehicle instead especially in view of the cold weather and risk of snow on the continent. living in southern england i dont of course bother with winter tyres. das -- for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- while this may be true they did it by buying you not by war pretty much the same thing that is happening to us. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving q what was the qualification required for becoming chairman of the european central bank a ability to speak german.. das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- and yet we managed to prevent all of europe from speaking german lol! ... .

From : huw

thats very odd. so if i add a couple of carriages to an empty train my efficiency goes up hardly but it works well with a fully occupied train. if you missed that point you are more daft than you suppose me to be. would you care to comment on my point about freight after all it is dream of a number of politicians to get juggernauts off the road. i commented plenty on freight traffic by rail. do some research youll find that not only is it far more efficient by rail but that our railroads are investing billions to expand service. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author thats very odd. so if i add a couple of carriages to an empty train my efficiency goes up would you care to comment on my point about freight after all it is dream of a number of politicians to get juggernauts off the road. das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- number of riders isnt a measure of efficiency. capacity per unit of fuel used is the efficency level. ill agree we are not using our rail efficiently that is my point. but it doesnt make cars more efficient than rail just because we drive cars more frequently. ... .

From : rachel easson

max dodge wrote the us military cant even cope with iraq. that depends directly on who is doing the reporting. tell that to the families of the thousands of american military personal killed and maimed there so far. tell it to the tens of thousands of brave soldiers who risk committed bombers who blow themselves up to rid their country of the foreign invaders on a daily basis and who are there for months at a time on several repeated tours of duty because there is not the manpower to relieve them. huw .

From : max dodge

rachel easson with extraneous verbal diarrhea wrote the vw bug has had a great comeback. roy responded the new beetle has been a pos with a ton of problems mainly electrical. no suprise at all -- i am not defending the bug and having an old vanagon never designed for canadian winters they are fun to drive esp. the high clearance great suspension strong trans. well positioned drivers seat and rack-and-pinion steering but other than that i am not impressed with volkswagens at all and the steering column had wiring problems has a push button ignition now -- i never thought i would be impressed with it but it did have a decent 1.6l and the old western vw vans do tend to hold their value. i spent $1600 cdn to use it as transportation and a cheap hotel for a all of july in calgary so it paid for itself and was cheap on gas to drive across the country back to quebec rach .

From : max dodge

and there were we readers of these forums being misled into thinking us cars had their oils changed every 3000 to 5000 miles while we europeans serviced our cars every 10000 to 15000 miles. lol as thom suggested it varies by owner. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author thom wrote actually the reason the us is so tough on cars is the fact that most people do not take care of their cars. they expect them to work all the time no matter how deficient their maintenance upkeep. and there were we readers of these forums being misled into thinking us cars had their oils changed every 3000 to 5000 miles while we europeans serviced our cars every 10000 to 15000 miles. lol huw .

From : dori a schmetterling

lol! budd your bitterness and ignorance is reaching all time highs. how does this in any way show socialism or communism if the company does poorly then all should share in the responsibility not just the workers and if pay cuts are needed to return profitability then the high level execs should also be getting those cuts not bonuses for screwing up. what if it isnt a union company with all those high paid workers who the hell will budd blame gbfg lol the democrats! -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : max dodge

max dodge wrote and yet we managed to prevent all of europe from speaking german lol! excellent point. im always fascinated by the way people from outside the u.s. criticize our actions. frankly half of us disagree with any given military action. fortunately when most of the u.s. was opposed to going to war in 1940 we decided to enter the european theatre regardless. this saved england from invasion and lead to the liberation of france. you actually only entered the war when it became obvious that the usa would have to deal with a power greater than itself if britain fell. the penny didnt drop in the pacific until most of the fleet had been sunk at pearl harbour. yet they seem to know better than we how our military works. it is hard to imagine that the average american has the slightest more idea of how their military work than anyone anywhere but others could take a step back dispassionately and see what was happening in vietnam. it is also fairly obvious what is happening now in iraq and the gung-ho talk of whooping chinese asses by some here is a reasoning that is a fair way removed from reality. one has to see beyond the militarist rhetoric. face it your military power is not capable even if the government chose to do so. and why should it be capable military action should be a last resort in defence not as an invading force on a power that was no doubt sympathetic to bin laden but was no real threat to the usa. there are now a hell of a lot more enemies of the west than ever before and with no end in sight for your stretched military or for peace in iraq. hammas a terrorist organisation has just won free and fair election in palestine. this would not have happened without a greatly increased animosity towards the west. huw .

From : max dodge

i am entertained by the idea that driving conditions in the usa are tougher than in the third world... and that inter-regional variation within the us is so great. oh man you should get out more. yes i know california isnt arizona isnt vermont weatherwise but still. perhaps you should get out more if you feel that the u.s. is all one set of driving conditions. maybe next time you arrive on our shores you should go farther than the local taxi takes you which is to say leave the city behind and forget about the pubs. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author i am entertained by the idea that driving conditions in the usa are tougher than in the third world... and that inter-regional variation within the us is so great. oh man you should get out more. yes i know california isnt arizona isnt vermont weatherwise but still. das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- ... perhaps you think that is a real pounding but reality tells me that use in the states can be very harsh to a car that isnt designed here in the states. like it or not each region has its own design characteristics. stuff designed outside the states tends to be less than up to the task here in the states. i hate to say it but americans in general tend to be heavier than other humans. thus cars take more abuse. part of that is because we drive longer distances as we dont have the rail system nor the same lifestyle as europe or the middle east. another factor in those distances is the fact that we dont have restrictive borders as frequently as other regions do thus we drive farther more frequently. add to this that our fuel has traditionally been cheaper and you have yet another reason we drive a lot. i have yet to see a pick up truck from japan deal with the loads we dump on our pickups. this decade may see that opinion change in the half ton market. ... .

From : alan lehun

even in the range rover they would cost only 440 or 110 each which is cheaper than the same four would travel by train. you are confusing personal cost with energy efficiency. until you figure out the difference you wont see the error of your thinking. further you seem to be more interested in insulting others rather than thinking about facts. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author pooh bear wrote max dodge wrote your costs for car travel of 220 miles miles in the uk sounds odd to me..... are roughly 30 which seem low a typical figure for the cost of running a car that would be allowable by the taxman that icludes depreciation maintenance and other costs in addition to fuel would be around 40p a mile. that 220 mile jouney equates to 88 by that measure. yes but my one of my cars costs over 1 a mile and the panda only costs 0.25 a mile. forget parking for simplicity then a 440 mile round trip in the panda would total 110 while a train trip to london would also cost 110 return for 1 person plus the cost of getting to the station and back at 20. so one person by train would cost 130 just 20 more than the train but four people cost a ridiculous 520 the same four people travelling by panda would cost 110 divided by four equals only 27.50 each. even in the range rover they would cost only 440 or 110 each which is cheaper than the same four would travel by train. huw t .

From : thom

and yet we managed to prevent all of europe from speaking german lol! excellent point. im always fascinated by the way people from outside the u.s. criticize our actions. frankly half of us disagree with any given military action. fortunately when most of the u.s. was opposed to going to war in 1940 we decided to enter the european theatre regardless. this saved england from invasion and lead to the liberation of france. yet they seem to know better than we how our military works. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author and yet we managed to prevent all of europe from speaking german lol! -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving huw wrote dtj wrote potential they have the potential to get their asses kicked if they keep supporting terrorists. cite like you kick the asses of those arabs i suppose http//.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4649066.stm hah ! you beat me to it ! the us military cant even cope with iraq. graham .

From : roy

you do not automatically plonk them. you respond them. this thread is proof. on sun 29 jan 2006 153124 -0500 roy roy@home.net wrote i guess that some are all consumed about what are supposed rules and guidelines. or perhaps they touch themselves too much. screwem. when i read a post by a top-poster i automatically plonk them. in general they are arrogant jerks who have nothing to say thats worth reading; the vitriolic blurb quoted above is a perfect example. -- what the heck ill play too. - dave .

From : tbone

-- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving i still dont understand why someone would want to put a plow on such a vehicle a 4x4 with 160 wheelbase and a plow. what is to understand because iirc that is the same wheelbase as the quad cab lb. you also made a very valid point that vehicles with plows can get the hell beat out of them and dont tend to last as long so why would you put such a device on dcs most expensive luxury targeted truck when the quad cab gives you the same wheelbase and passenger carrying capability for considerably less money. because they want to. fair enough. dual use. again this is just my personal opinion but i wouldnt want to make that one of the uses on such an expensive vehicle. a one ton 4x4 tuck should be able to plow if so desired and that seem to be the case. there is not much more luxury offered in the mc than in the qc. only a longer cab. people plow with the top of the line trucks made by ford and chevy and with dc top line with the excetion of the mcctd. like i said before i am not saying youre wrong i just dont personally see it but since you do this type of work and i never have... 1500 series trucks also come as 4x4s but i doubt that you would recommend them for preferred use as snow plows. you are correct. lol i hope so. roy -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

tbone wrote the problem here max is this is a german company. i am talking about the american companies that lay off 500 workers and then give the ceo a 10000000 salary increase and bonuses for raising the profit margin. thats america all over. next the ceo wil take early retirement and get another $10m. probably - -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

roy wrote while this country send billions of dollars around the world to aid other countries. you mean to invade them surely. graham .

From : bill putney

tbone wrote no its about getting america to get off its lard butt and take back its industry but that would mean unions taking wage cuts and the epa being told to shut up and suck on a pine tree. sorry budd but this is incorrect. there is no way that we can compete with gubberment subsidized third and second world countries unless of course you are willing to kill the american dream and have the workers live like those in second and third world countries including the poverty and pollution. yes there is. really how if you want to buy american it needs to be owned and built here. and the only way that will happen is by forcing some types of trade restrictions. and this is the way. that is not competition budd that is restrictions and i agree with that to a point. japan and germany didnt lose ww ii they just waited and bought us off. on this we agree and they did it by playing on our short sightedness and greed. no its because we let them set the proportions to import / export ratios and tariffs and then accepted them. like i said our short sightedness and greed. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

bill putney wrote did we just hit the godiwn criteria bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x ....godwin... bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : roy

on 30 jan 2006 122258 -0800 budd cochran mr-d150@preciscom.net wrote roy wrote roy wrote no its about getting america to get off its lard butt and take back its industry but that would mean unions taking wage cuts and the epa being told to shut up and suck on a pine tree. how about we cut your pension or however you get paid. im so sick of hearing cut the employees wages as part of the cure all end all. who the hell here can afford a pay cut roy sarcasm at warp factor 30000 oh i forgot i cant comment on your god and master the union. sure ya can. like i said budd. how about you and a pay cut im sorry i wasnt talking about government services i was talking about union ripoffs of the consumer. a true railroad man you are. sure am. so was my step-dad. sarcasm back to impulse speed roy did you ever stop to really look at a big part of why you cant afford a pay cut i can everybody can by adjusting their life style. i certainly will when i retire. what amazes me is that is usually sombody wanting to tear down sombody else to make a point. so to follow how about a pay cut budd your pretty free with tossing my pay caheck around how about you. doesnt sound to damn good does it what will you retire with roy what would you share with those in need out of it unions demand more manufacturers raise prices to pay union demands unions demand more to pay higher prices caused by previous demands. ad nauseum. when was the last time you heard of a railroad strike looks like the railroads and their unions agreed on contracts. hmmm.... so did the automakers or they would still be on strike. whats your point unions always accept when they get what they really wanted. they demand decent wages paid medical to include family worker safty a 40 hour work week paid holidays paid vacations. just a few of the things that you probably have enjoyed and have not had to do a damn thing to get. do you really believe that these benifits we just handed out by the corperations. get a clue will ya! lol no you get a clue. thats past history roy. now unions are no longer needed. theyre dinosaurs. budd that is a terribly ignorant thing to say. period. even stupid. unions have a ying and yang to them like all things. for example like management. there is no silver bullet no universal answer. however unions hae a very definate place in this country. all workers deserve to have input into their salary and benefits. all workers deserve to be guarenteed a fair discipline system that follows the doctrine of due cause and due process. the laws of this country however do not always support those gaurentees especially since big business has had the influence with the law makers that they have over the past 20 years. fair employement laws have been rewritten to very intolerent levels. unless you are in a protected class female black sexual preference etc. your ability to require your employer to follow due process and due cause are very likely non existant. what those changes have done is create an even larger opening for unions who step in and through a negotiated contract force a fair system of discipline on the employer. but of course the unions dont stop there. they try to get more and what you see sensationalized in the media is the cases where the unions have too much discipline impact and the hands of the employer become tied. who is to blame for this unions or the employer i think the employer. and as far as wages unions represent the employees. rare employers will give up more than what they have to. unions try to get as much as they can. most of the time they reach a fair settlement. what has gathered the attention here is if employees and thus the unions that represent them should give back gains as the company loses revenue. good question but much more complex than a single answer like yours can give. employees probably didnt run the company into the ground. employees see their managers continue to get ridiculous sums of money and benefits even when they are asked to give back. employees signed a contract and then made life decisions on that contact. decisions like planning and setting aside money for their kids education for their own retirement. pretty hard to give that up if you didnt muck up the company and your boss who did is still getting his same salary. anyway budd unions are not dinosaurs. they fill a need. they have to or they would not exist. they also create problems and have unintended outcomes. that is life. from my experience after 34 years in government a lot of it in management all of it dealing through or with unions unions have a real place in protecting the rights of the workers. i am not a union employee by the way. but the abuse that i see on the part of governments around here is incredible and frankly as much as unions are a pain in my ass i fully

From : max dodge

on sun 29 jan 2006 113032 -0500 roy roy@home.net wrote on sun 29 jan 2006 101737 -0500 roy roy@home.net wrote no its about getting america to get off its lard butt and take back its industry but that would mean unions taking wage cuts and the epa being told to shut up and suck on a pine tree. how about we cut your pension or however you get paid. im so sick of hearing cut the employees wages as part of the cure all end all. who the hell here can afford a pay cut which would you rather have your pay cut or your job cut a lot of ford and gm workers are about to wish they had taken the pay cut... -- you folks continue with the same mantra. cut the workers wages. it is damn easy to say until it affects you. also the same bs it will be your job if you dont take a pay cut the jobs will go anyway. roy if everyone took a pay cut everything would cost less - yeah right!! but if an assembly line worker is making more than 60 grand a year youre kidding -- the average assembly line worker is making that people in gm in oshawaon were working one week on one weeks off and having a hard time financially is it because the unions are stronger there rach .

From : roy

the us military cant even cope with iraq. that depends directly on who is doing the reporting. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author huw wrote dtj wrote potential they have the potential to get their asses kicked if they keep supporting terrorists. cite like you kick the asses of those arabs i suppose http//.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4649066.stm hah ! you beat me to it ! the us military cant even cope with iraq. graham .

From : rachel easson

suddenly without warning tbone exclaimed 29-jan-06 524 pm you might also look into replacing the blower as well. it is drawing too much current. yea i know. ive actually mentioned that in posts to other folks just didnt this time. if it blows again ill try to do just that if i can get the parts. jmc .

From : max dodge

rachel easson wrote no its about getting america to get off its lard butt and take back its industry but that would mean unions taking wage cuts and the epa being told to shut up and suck on a pine tree. if you want to buy american it needs to be owned and built here. japan and germany didnt lose ww ii they just waited and bought us off. budd i think america let them -- japan they gave technology to -- but japan was already getting german technology -- but the americans bought from them -- i agree it needs to be built here -- not assembled here -- and owned by north americans -- actually in all industries here we need to be doing that whenever we can -- canada too -- we all have plenty of resources but we sell them cheap before we even look at using what we need first and then selling them cheap to our neighbours we need to keep all our industries for ourselves. sorry rachel but that includes canada. gm ford and dc/chrysler need to cut the bonds and let each country fend for themselves. i think there are way too many fat executives at d-c who have forgotten about the average guy -- especially the ones who are going hungry working on their lines -- these guys are having a hard time buying gas or paying for the bus pass -- they really dont care about performance as long as it runs. dc/chrysler was the first in america to offer gasoline subsidies for new owners. its curious that many performance cars from the 60 and early 70s got as god or better economy than the overweight underpowered crap called a automobile today. my 68 road runner 383 auto 3.23 3700 pounds when my mom drove it got 24 mpg highway and 18 mpg around town. my 72 charger 400-2bbl auto 3.23 4100 pounds got 22 highway and 17 around town after i tuned it to 1968 specifications. and i managed to squeeze 41 mpg out of a slant six in a 2400 pound 1964 valiant. all had carburetors not fuel injection. you got over 40mpg out of a valiant my bullshit detector just went off.g there has to bemore to this story. imagine what a decent fuel injection cold have done . . . . the vw bug has had a great comeback. the new beetle has been a pos with a ton of problems mainly electrical. did d-c completely forget about the k car we havent. cheap and reliable cheap parts guarantee all the body and major parts will not change over the next 10 years unless there are faults or necessary improvements to be made hey they have been at this long enough that 90s technology in something like that is a no-brainer -- and use existing common parts already being manufactured here wherever they can. make it in 2 models with interchangeable body panels -- all with bench seats -- 2dr 2 seater club with 3 belts cab hatchback with fold-down seats in the back these should be equipped with lap belts with two sets of hookups for baby carriers auto trans optional awd unless they can do this cheap on all models no power accessories-- 4dr 4 seater with 6 belts hatchback station wagon with rear fold-seats and optional identical fold-down seats with same belts found in the 2dr with optional factory roof rack with built-in extension bars auto trans optional awd optional 4wd luxury editions can have power options -- and call it simply the chrysler k k station wagon k 4x4 -- gotta love those old amc eagles as the epa is allowed to gain power realiability economy and performance will suffer. i never figured out how a car getting 10 mpg and 10% less emissions thats a ten percent reduction of the remaining emissions after the advent of the pcv valve was better than a car getting 25 mpg. btw chrysler ford and gm engineers couldnt figure it out either back in 72. the epa ignored inquiries about it. put their most reliable components in them and build them or begin moving that way yep update the slant six get rid of all the environmental crap that reduces economy and performance and put it in a solid sturdy car. hey . . . that sounds like my old valiant. this car helped build their reputation -- and how about designing them so the driver can see all four quarters i think minivans are on their way out -- at least in canada recently there was a discussion about vehicle safewty and the mini-van suv factor was ignored. a larger vehicle is simply put a larger hammer in an accident. i wonder if my opponents to s tronger car for jhighway accidents drive minnis or suvs . . . they are doing this in other industries -- what about buy nine get one free -- business incentive -- lets see the police drive around in them grn -- actually was thinking the parking police too but they dont deserve vehicles at all except to get away when someone is trying to assault them vbgrn hmmm must be quebecois gendarmes . . . .vbg how about reducing prices period instead of rebates how about getting the monetary systems of the major world countries back on a precious metal supported s

From : jay

roy wrote roy wrote no its about getting america to get off its lard butt and take back its industry but that would mean unions taking wage cuts and the epa being told to shut up and suck on a pine tree. how about we cut your pension or however you get paid. im so sick of hearing cut the employees wages as part of the cure all end all. who the hell here can afford a pay cut roy sarcasm at warp factor 30000 oh i forgot i cant comment on your god and master the union. sure ya can. like i said budd. how about you and a pay cut im sorry i wasnt talking about government services why the hell not it is godd for everybody eles but not budd i was talking about union ripoffs of the consumer. now it is union rip offs. you really are a sick guy. a true railroad man you are. sure am. so was my step-dad. sarcasm back to impulse speed roy did you ever stop to really look at a big part of why you cant afford a pay cut i can everybody can by adjusting their life style. i certainly will when i retire. what amazes me is that is usually sombody wanting to tear down sombody else to make a point. so to follow how about a pay cut budd your pretty free with tossing my pay caheck around how about you. doesnt sound to damn good does it what will you retire with roy im not really sure budd but i should check. i collect railroad retirement not ss. it is a different thing totally. what would you share with those in need out of it unions demand more manufacturers raise prices to pay union demands unions demand more to pay higher prices caused by previous demands. ad nauseum. when was the last time you heard of a railroad strike looks like the railroads and their unions agreed on contracts. hmmm.... so did the automakers or they would still be on strike. whats your point unions always accept when they get what they really wanted. are you so screwed up that you actually believe that they demand decent wages paid medical to include family worker safty a 40 hour work week paid holidays paid vacations. just a few of the things that you probably have enjoyed and have not had to do a damn thing to get. do you really believe that these benifits we just handed out by the corperations. get a clue will ya! lol no you get a clue. thats past history roy. now unions are no longer needed. theyre dinosaurs. really budd ya need to get out more. you cant see what is heading down the road. these hmos are really cool arent they they are just the start. not to say that there are not a few unions that have screwed their members. but most do a decent job representing their membership. ands what fairy tale book is that from what does you leadership earn per year compared to your income so where is the problem budd is it really the unions or is it with the owners seeking to maximize their profit the problem dinosaur unions and socialists destroying free enterprise for starters. your own employers have gone thru the same crap themselves and now the once mighty rail industry is a subsidized pauper... csx bn are subsidized care to name a passenger rairoad that is not subsidized hauling people is not profitable. that is why every frieght railroad stopped doing it. ya know roy youre the one that brought the railroad into this i was talking about the unions. no budd you brought railroad into it. fyi there are over 13 different unions representing rairoad workers. and much of you job is more subsidized than you know. tell me. do you haul bulk us mail no the welfare recipient of the american industrial world. roy part of your income is paid by every taxpayer in the usa thanks to union demands. really then the taxpayer is screwing a bunch of people. the folks at amtrak have not had a raise in over 7 years. but i bet you have had a few colas in you check though had a few what in my checks colas short for cost of living adjustments something else that the unions got ya i get $911/ mo. s.s.i. disability. it doesnt cover my medicines. thanks to unions i have no retirement other than that. no ira no roth the only company that had a retirement in the contract got it back due to a maverick strike the union called. i think the word your looking for is wildcat strike how did the company get it back. your income is paid by who im sorry do you think our government should not help those disabled and with no retirtement to fall back on no of course not when was the last time you worked to tell you the gospel truth roy id rather have my health back and be working my butt off somewhere. would you like to have eight heart attacks a double bypass polio arthritis and diabetes with nothing to fall back on everybody has problems budd. some worse than others. most continue on and dont mention them. roy budd .

From : tbone

rachel easson wrote no its about getting america to get off its lard butt and take back its industry but that would mean unions taking wage cuts and the epa being told to shut up and suck on a pine tree. if you want to buy american it needs to be owned and built here. japan and germany didnt lose ww ii they just waited and bought us off. budd i think america let them -- japan they gave technology to -- but japan was already getting german technology -- but the americans bought from them -- i agree it needs to be built here -- not assembled here -- and owned by north americans -- actually in all industries here we need to be doing that whenever we can -- canada too -- we all have plenty of resources but we sell them cheap before we even look at using what we need first and then selling them cheap to our neighbours we need to keep all our industries for ourselves. sorry rachel but that includes canada. gm ford and dc/chrysler need to cut the bonds and let each country fend for themselves. tell this to the ceos that you keep defending. i think there are way too many fat executives at d-c who have forgotten about the average guy -- especially the ones who are going hungry working on their lines -- these guys are having a hard time buying gas or paying for the bus pass -- they really dont care about performance as long as it runs. dc/chrysler was the first in america to offer gasoline subsidies for new owners. its curious that many performance cars from the 60 and early 70s got as god or better economy than the overweight underpowered crap called a automobile today. complete crap. my 68 road runner 383 auto 3.23 3700 pounds when my mom drove it got 24 mpg highway and 18 mpg around town. my 72 charger 400-2bbl auto 3.23 4100 pounds got 22 highway and 17 around town after i tuned it to 1968 specifications. and i managed to squeeze 41 mpg out of a slant six in a 2400 pound 1964 valiant. all had carburetors not fuel injection. a strong smell of bs is filling the room! imagine what a decent fuel injection cold have done . . . . exactly what it is doing. the vw bug has had a great comeback. did d-c completely forget about the k car we havent. cheap and reliable cheap parts guarantee all the body and major parts will not change over the next 10 years unless there are faults or necessary improvements to be made hey they have been at this long enough that 90s technology in something like that is a no-brainer -- and use existing common parts already being manufactured here wherever they can. make it in 2 models with interchangeable body panels -- all with bench seats -- 2dr 2 seater club with 3 belts cab hatchback with fold-down seats in the back these should be equipped with lap belts with two sets of hookups for baby carriers auto trans optional awd unless they can do this cheap on all models no power accessories-- 4dr 4 seater with 6 belts hatchback station wagon with rear fold-seats and optional identical fold-down seats with same belts found in the 2dr with optional factory roof rack with built-in extension bars auto trans optional awd optional 4wd luxury editions can have power options -- and call it simply the chrysler k k station wagon k 4x4 -- gotta love those old amc eagles as the epa is allowed to gain power realiability economy and performance will suffer. more complete crap that you cant possibly hope to support. i never figured out how a car getting 10 mpg and 10% less emissions thats a ten percent reduction of the remaining emissions after the advent of the pcv valve was better than a car getting 25 mpg. btw chrysler ford and gm engineers couldnt figure it out either back in 72. lol how many cars were getting better than 25 mpg in 72 it is not that the engineers couldnt figure it out they were never given the time to do so by chrysler ford and gm. gm would lead the battle cry that it simply couldnt be done and the others would follow forcing the epa to back down. that is until new makers to the us such as honda said they could and did do it and the epa finally held its ground. this caused the big three to scramble to come up with something and the junk they came up with in the 70s and early 80s was the result. if they had looked at the requirements as a challenge rather than just an expense we would be much farther ahead today. the epa ignored inquiries about it. put their most reliable components in them and build them or begin moving that way yep update the slant six get rid of all the environmental crap that reduces economy and performance and put it in a solid sturdy car. hey . . . that sounds like my old valiant. get over it budd that is ancient history and the cars of today would toast your valiant. this car helped build their reputation -- and how about designing them so the driver can see all four quarters i think minivans are on th

From : clare at snyder on ca

nice garage. how big is that thing and btw you suck!!! - yeah.... i know. about 2000 sq. ft. some more pictures here http//home.earthlink.net/tlawrence53/ its beautiful! i had real problems getting to your pics. my adaware is programmed to block pop-ups and crashes the browser. in opera you get to your home directory but when you click on an image a pop-up generates and opera crashes. grudgingly i opened explorer -- in explorer this means 6-7 pop-ups generated by earthlink before it crashes. determined as i was i reopened opera and saved all the images to hard drive instead to look at them since i already downloaded them and have some good tools i am going to take ten minutes to make you an index page with thumbnails of each pic and links to full sizes and send it to you in a zip file for ideas if you want to look at them rach .

From : dori a schmetterling

you gotta hand it to em though bill. took ages. is this a record das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- bill putney wrote did we just hit the godiwn criteria bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x ...godwin... bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : dori a schmetterling

on sun 29 jan 2006 113032 -0500 roy roy@home.net wrote on sun 29 jan 2006 101737 -0500 roy roy@home.net wrote no its about getting america to get off its lard butt and take back its industry but that would mean unions taking wage cuts and the epa being told to shut up and suck on a pine tree. how about we cut your pension or however you get paid. im so sick of hearing cut the employees wages as part of the cure all end all. who the hell here can afford a pay cut which would you rather have your pay cut or your job cut a lot of ford and gm workers are about to wish they had taken the pay cut... -- you folks continue with the same mantra. cut the workers wages. it is damn easy to say until it affects you. also the same bs it will be your job if you dont take a pay cut the jobs will go anyway. roy if everyone took a pay cut everything would cost less - yeah right!! but if an assembly line worker is making more than 60 grand a year how is the service worker making 28 going to survive if the uaw dont start taking a bit of responsibility they wont exist in 10 years. and that my dear fellows is a fact. no union auto assembly jobs - no union. .

From : thom

errr... i said third world not europe though some parts of it do belong there... but i am assuming you mean western europe... tears hair out in frustration das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- actually the reason the us is so tough on cars is the fact that most people do not take care of their cars. they expect them to work all the time no matter how deficient their maintenance upkeep. i have lived in and maintained cars in arizona mississippi texas wisconsin and indiana. so they have seen oppressive heat humidity rain snow cold ice etc... none have let me down ford us and korean chevy us and japanese mercedes. if all of us americans took care of our cars like folks in europe the automotive industry would be in much better shape here. ... .

From : thom

people working on the automotive industry lines going hungry are you kidding the average pay for a uaw worker far exceeds the average non uaw worker. they are well above poverty and get better benefits the most everyone else especially the deals they get on cars they build. the unions have put quite a stranglehold on the industry and have created the problem in hte automotive industry at least in the us. it is hard to fix a problem with the cars you produce if you are not allowed to make personnel/mfg/location changes as necessary because the union always steps in. you think they are looking out for the little guy but they are just political they are looking out for themselves only. .

From : budd cochran

i still dont understand why someone would want to put a plow on such a vehicle a 4x4 with 160 wheelbase and a plow. what is to understand because iirc that is the same wheelbase as the quad cab lb. you also made a very valid point that vehicles with plows can get the hell beat out of them and dont tend to last as long so why would you put such a device on dcs most expensive luxury targeted truck when the quad cab gives you the same wheelbase and passenger carrying capability for considerably less money. because they want to. dual use. a one ton 4x4 tuck should be able to plow if so desired and that seem to be the case. there is not much more luxury offered in the mc than in the qc. only a longer cab. people plow with the top of the line trucks made by ford and chevy and with dc top line with the excetion of the mcctd. 1500 series trucks also come as 4x4s but i doubt that you would recommend them for preferred use as snow plows. you are correct. roy -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : huw

roy wrote roy wrote no its about getting america to get off its lard butt and take back its industry but that would mean unions taking wage cuts and the epa being told to shut up and suck on a pine tree. how about we cut your pension or however you get paid. im so sick of hearing cut the employees wages as part of the cure all end all. who the hell here can afford a pay cut roy sarcasm at warp factor 30000 oh i forgot i cant comment on your god and master the union. sure ya can. like i said budd. how about you and a pay cut im sorry i wasnt talking about government services i was talking about union ripoffs of the consumer. a true railroad man you are. sure am. so was my step-dad. sarcasm back to impulse speed roy did you ever stop to really look at a big part of why you cant afford a pay cut i can everybody can by adjusting their life style. i certainly will when i retire. what amazes me is that is usually sombody wanting to tear down sombody else to make a point. so to follow how about a pay cut budd your pretty free with tossing my pay caheck around how about you. doesnt sound to damn good does it what will you retire with roy what would you share with those in need out of it unions demand more manufacturers raise prices to pay union demands unions demand more to pay higher prices caused by previous demands. ad nauseum. when was the last time you heard of a railroad strike looks like the railroads and their unions agreed on contracts. hmmm.... so did the automakers or they would still be on strike. whats your point unions always accept when they get what they really wanted. they demand decent wages paid medical to include family worker safty a 40 hour work week paid holidays paid vacations. just a few of the things that you probably have enjoyed and have not had to do a damn thing to get. do you really believe that these benifits we just handed out by the corperations. get a clue will ya! lol no you get a clue. thats past history roy. now unions are no longer needed. theyre dinosaurs. not to say that there are not a few unions that have screwed their members. but most do a decent job representing their membership. ands what fairy tale book is that from what does you leadership earn per year compared to your income so where is the problem budd is it really the unions or is it with the owners seeking to maximize their profit the problem dinosaur unions and socialists destroying free enterprise for starters. your own employers have gone thru the same crap themselves and now the once mighty rail industry is a subsidized pauper... csx bn are subsidized care to name a passenger rairoad that is not subsidized hauling people is not profitable. that is why every frieght railroad stopped doing it. ya know roy youre the one that brought the railroad into this i was talking about the unions. and much of you job is more subsidized than you know. do you haul bulk us mail the welfare recipient of the american industrial world. roy part of your income is paid by every taxpayer in the usa thanks to union demands. really then the taxpayer is screwing a bunch of people. the folks at amtrak have not had a raise in over 7 years. but i bet you have had a few colas in you check though had a few what in my checks i get $911/ mo. s.s.i. disability. it doesnt cover my medicines. thanks to unions i have no retirement other than that. the only company that had a retirement in the contract got it back due to a maverick strike the union called. your income is paid by who im sorry do you think our government should not help those disabled and with no retirtement to fall back on to tell you the gospel truth roy id rather have my health back and be working my butt off somewhere. would you like to have eight heart attacks a double bypass polio arthritis and diabetes with nothing to fall back on budd .

From : tbone

thom wrote actually the reason the us is so tough on cars is the fact that most people do not take care of their cars. they expect them to work all the time no matter how deficient their maintenance upkeep. and there were we readers of these forums being misled into thinking us cars had their oils changed every 3000 to 5000 miles while we europeans serviced our cars every 10000 to 15000 miles. lol huw .

From : rachel easson

and nafta should never have been passed. it sent jobs america needs out of country and i believe its a part of the cause of gm and ford losses and chrysler now being a german car line. budd yep politicians make experiments like nafta without knowing the consequences -- it wasnt good for canada probably worse for us just like the eec in europe was not good for great britain or several other countries but really good for france and germany rach .

From : matthew t russotto

while this may be true they did it by buying you not by war pretty much the same thing that is happening to us. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving q what was the qualification required for becoming chairman of the european central bank a ability to speak german.. das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- and yet we managed to prevent all of europe from speaking german lol! ... .

From : dori a schmetterling

yes you are but i wasnt going to comment about it first.. budd pooh bear wrote budd cochran wrote now with cable dsl for example top posting makes sense so you get to the reply much faster. what ridiculous nonsense. graham .

From : dori a schmetterling

yes dear. as i think i suggested elsewhere you must get out more...;- the legal measure of distance is the mile. but the legal measure of weight is the kilogramme. das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- ... 220 miles miles in the uk sounds odd to me..... ... .

From : dori a schmetterling

exactly what i mean as i pointed out in another post in the sense that your example is from the very few routes that are viable. the fact that we are getting new fast services in europe does not add anything as they all connect large urban centres. however much i admire the rail tunnel under the english channel and i use it sometimes the fact is that the cost of construction was huge and has seen no return. the operating profit barely covers the interest due. how about butte to rochester ny try sending your consignment of a table and chairs by rail... in germany every factory had a railhead what fantastic infrastructure you would think. and yet so many have fallen into disuse. dreams dreams dreams. in short rail has a place in the overall transport scheme of things but only a limited one. das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- ... for me to travel from philadelphia to washington d.c. i must pay for fuel which would be approximately $15 assuming traffic was good. parking in d.c. would cost me $20 for the day if i was lucky. travel time would be four hours or so costing roughly $100 in productive time depending on pay rate/salary. meanwhile a ticket for amtrak would cost $40-$55 for a two hour ride. during the ride i could do paperwork or relax. ... .

From : dori a schmetterling

this nugget btw was mentioned on bbc tv top gear a few months ago with some glee as you might imagine... unfortunately they did not give details of the report and who published it. das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- huw wrote fuel use per passenger mile is higher by train you are barking mad ! graham .

From : thom

but youll feel great and might have brown underpants... das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- ... if you spend all your worktime scratching your ass you wont be very productive ! graham .

From : matthew t russotto

thats very odd. so if i add a couple of carriages to an empty train my efficiency goes up would you care to comment on my point about freight after all it is dream of a number of politicians to get juggernauts off the road. das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- number of riders isnt a measure of efficiency. capacity per unit of fuel used is the efficency level. ill agree we are not using our rail efficiently that is my point. but it doesnt make cars more efficient than rail just because we drive cars more frequently. ... .

From : huw

actually the reason the us is so tough on cars is the fact that most people do not take care of their cars. they expect them to work all the time no matter how deficient their maintenance upkeep. i have lived in and maintained cars in arizona mississippi texas wisconsin and indiana. so they have seen oppressive heat humidity rain snow cold ice etc... none have let me down ford us and korean chevy us and japanese mercedes. if all of us americans took care of our cars like folks in europe the automotive industry would be in much better shape here. also to bob i have been overseas and american drivers cause many more problems on their roads then do they on ours. i can only imagine what they say about american caucasians in the east when we try to drive in tokyo especially if we bring our big poorly maintained us cars there. .

From : dori a schmetterling

huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote the most densly populated nations tend to be the most prosperous and china has the potential of being more prosperous than the usa. the us has been more prosperous than a more densely populated europe for a long time. .

From : matthew t russotto

matthew t. russotto wrote pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote comments4u wrote with job cuts announced on both sides of the atlantic its clear daimler-chrysler is serious about cutting the fat. even more it has announced plans for increased production at the currently hot chrysler unit without additional workers. that is truely cutting the fat. but observers wonder if daimler-chrysler has really identified all its fat. no. its about getting america off its lardy ass and competing at world standard productivity levels. why should america reduce its productivity levels quite correct. i dont think there is anything wrong with productivity levels which are as good as anywhere. huw .

From : rachel easson

who has more people in work as a percentage of the population i said employment is among the highest. whats strange about a restructuring of british industry unhappily a lot happened all at once but maybe that was because so much had been held up. it seemed like a dam bursting. so what exactly did maggie do in terms of destruction yes she destroyed certain interest groups grip on sectors of the economy whether it be the unions on coal or the opticians on reading glasses. she had a tilt at the legal profession but did not succeed. however at least the solicitors grip on conveyancing property transfer prices was loosened and fees tumbled. now that i am a taxpayer i dont wish to pour billions into propping up various industries in general especially not cars. if we the population decide that propping up the railways is a good thing thne so be it. but that is not on the scale of steel coal airlines cars etc as decades ago. das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- ... you sem to have a strange view of things. thatcher did her bit to destroy british industry but uk unemployment is by no means among the highest in europe. graham .

From : dori a schmetterling

i have a 1996 dokota 3.9 l 4x4 the dummy light in on and the codes read multi mis fire & low volatage output. has new plugs wires and coil and timing has been done help please .

From : budd cochran

if you want to buy american it needs to be owned and built here. budd rachel easson wrote i think america let them -- japan they gave technology to -- but japan was already getting german technology -- but the americans bought from them -- i agree it needs to be built here -- not assembled here -- and owned by north americans -- actually in all industries here we need to be doing that whenever we can -- canada too -- we all have plenty of resources but we sell them cheap before we even look at using what we need first and then selling them cheap to our neighbours we need to keep all our industries for ourselves. sorry rachel but that includes canada. gm ford and dc/chrysler need to cut the bonds and let each country fend for themselves. ok thats fair budd -- some people in canada feel that way too -- just that they have plants here too we call them domestic vehicles -- you are right -- if they closed their plants here canada would buy domestic vehicles from the states. in many areas of canada you simply do not consider imports and jeep is still considered somewhat an import in a lot of these area because parts can take weeks to get towing to a dealer might mean an 8 hour tow and dealer support stinks but for domestics they have to give reasonable service because in small towns word gets around fast rach i think there are way too many fat executives at d-c who have forgotten about the average guy -- especially the ones who are going hungry working on their lines -- these guys are having a hard time buying gas or paying for the bus pass -- they really dont care about performance as long as it runs. dc/chrysler was the first in america to offer gasoline subsidies for new owners. its curious that many performance cars from the 60 and early 70s got as god or better economy than the overweight underpowered crap called a automobile today. so true my 68 road runner 383 auto 3.23 3700 pounds when my mom drove it got 24 mpg highway and 18 mpg around town. my 72 charger 400-2bbl auto 3.23 4100 pounds got 22 highway and 17 around town after i tuned it to 1968 specifications. and i managed to squeeze 41 mpg out of a slant six in a 2400 pound 1964 valiant. all had carburetors not fuel injection. imagine what a decent fuel injection cold have done . . . . you lucky thing! 3 beautiful cars! my sl6 1 bbl d150 gets great mileage even better right now because it doesnt run but i love it anyway the vw bug has had a great comeback. did d-c completely forget about the k car we havent. cheap and reliable cheap parts guarantee all the body and major parts will not change over the next 10 years unless there are faults or necessary improvements to be made hey they have been at this long enough that 90s technology in something like that is a no-brainer -- and use existing common parts already being manufactured here wherever they can. make it in 2 models with interchangeable body panels -- all with bench seats -- 2dr 2 seater club with 3 belts cab hatchback with fold-down seats in the back these should be equipped with lap belts with two sets of hookups for baby carriers auto trans optional awd unless they can do this cheap on all models no power accessories-- 4dr 4 seater with 6 belts hatchback station wagon with rear fold-seats and optional identical fold-down seats with same belts found in the 2dr with optional factory roof rack with built-in extension bars auto trans optional awd optional 4wd luxury editions can have power options -- and call it simply the chrysler k k station wagon k 4x4 -- gotta love those old amc eagles as the epa is allowed to gain power realiability economy and performance will suffer. i never figured out how a car getting 10 mpg and 10% less emissions thats a ten percent reduction of the remaining emissions after the advent of the pcv valve was better than a car getting 25 mpg. btw chrysler ford and gm engineers couldnt figure it out either back in 72. the epa ignored inquiries about it. no doubt! put their most reliable components in them and build them or begin moving that way yep update the slant six get rid of all the environmental crap that reduces economy and performance and put it in a solid sturdy car. hey . . . that sounds like my old valiant. mine has some environmental crap and yes the other sl6 86 d150 is getting metal and an efi upgrade since we stole its carb and choke and the engine is really solid i expect to fall in love again ;- this car helped build their reputation -- and how about designing them so the driver can see all four quarters i think minivans are on their way out -- at least in canada recently there was a discussion about vehicle safewty and the mini-van suv factor was ignored. a larger vehicle is simply put a larger hammer in an accident. i wonder if my opponents to s tronger car for jhighway accidents drive minnis or suvs . . .

From : dori a schmetterling

and can peugeot diesel engines not take their place at/near the top of the reliability tree das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- ... curious then that where cars do take a real pouding such as in india the locally made padmini is a fiat dericative and in many middle eastern and african countries that peugeots stand up well to the task. graham .

From : roy

i still dont understand why someone would want to put a plow on such a vehicle a 4x4 with 160 wheelbase and a plow. what is to understand because iirc that is the same wheelbase as the quad cab lb. you also made a very valid point that vehicles with plows can get the hell beat out of them and dont tend to last as long so why would you put such a device on dcs most expensive luxury targeted truck when the quad cab gives you the same wheelbase and passenger carrying capability for considerably less money. 1500 series trucks also come as 4x4s but i doubt that you would recommend them for preferred use as snow plows. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : bob m

was out with a friend looking at the new mega cabs. what a damn disappointment. a suppoosedly hd 4x4 truck that you cant put a plow on if you get the cummins engine. so on a truck with the msrp over $54k the front end is so marginal that it cant handle a snow plow that will cost dc some customers. i know my friend is going looking at ford and i dont blame him. roy wow that really surprises me too. thank you roy for posting this. i was close to purchasing a mega cab but after finding your post i doubt i will. i just naturally assumed an hd truck would accomodate a plow. dont be misled. you can put a plow on a hemi powered mega cab. i am going to have to start pricing out the quad cab 2500 ctd instead. ive plowed with a 2500 qc ctd for a couple of years with no problems. id suggest a rear window defogger though. i am amazed that dodge would have made an oversight such as this. its too bad the mega cab would have been perfect for me. would have been perfect for a lot of people. would you by any chance know whether it is the suspension or the axle assembly itself not being up to par im not

From : steve

huw wrote tbone wrote lol what makes you think they are not. some of the countries are poor and cannot afford subsidies for their core export manufacturers. some do subsidise somewhat. an example is the usa some 18 months ago which subsidised their steel industry against perfectly legitimate unsubsidised imports from elsewhere. the us steel industry was/is inefficient but was pretected by import restrictions. this is no longer needed because the price of steel has risen drastically but at the time and when it suited the us it effectively protected its industry. huw you know i have sat here and read this thread and so far i have remained silent. but i am sick and tired of huws america bashing. huw you seem to be such an intelligent mr. know it all answer me this. if you friggin gooks are so smart and have everything figured out why the hell cant any of you people drive you arrive here in the us by the boat load and then clog our streets with your rice burners. at the same time driving 15 to 20 miles per hour under the speed limit breaking traffic laws or worse yet just sitting at a green light while trying to figure out what to do next. so if you are so smart just answer me this. why the hell cant you people drive bob .

From : tbone

max dodge wrote yet not a word about gm whose entire chevy lineup contained just three cars compared to its six suvs. one of those cars is the corvette not exactly a best seller given its small market share. the most frustrating thing to me is that the rest of the world *still* judges american cars solely on gm. gm is crap. gm has been crap compared to ford and chrysler for 80+ years no there. fords descent to crap is relatively recent and hopefully temporary by comparison. chrysler managed to mostly avoid the crap syndrome ok well forget 1977-1981 -p and hopefully will survive as a mostly autonomous unit in its forced marriage to daimler... although only the jeeps and trucks remain truly free of daimler engineering ties. .

From : dori a schmetterling

bit of a rambling rant. your main points are... yes i warned you guys of that -- and i could probably say all that in 3 breaths grn -- i have add -- that doesnt mean i am good at adding ;- main points -- exec.s are leaving holes in the market for more modest consumers they should start making the k car again which helped built their car reputation for modest consumers in the 80s when people were hard up along with many other impressive cars with fabulous engineering before they could build a k car based on original focus -- keep it simple would help these consumers long term esp. if the consumers wants to keep the car and repair it -- keep options down use existing tried and true technology and parts -- keep components the same over many years guaranteed using existing good stuff -- people who can afford an expensive car can still be proud of their k cars as a good investment even if they have turned pink with age grn rach das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- ... i think america let them -- japan they gave technology to -- but japan was already getting german technology -- but the americans bought from them -- i agree it needs to be built here -- not assembled here -- and owned by north americans -- actually in all industries here we need to be doing that whenever we can -- canada too -- we all have plenty of resources but we sell them cheap before we even look at using what we need first and then selling them cheap to our neighbours i think there are way too many fat executives at d-c who have forgotten about the average guy -- especially the ones who are going hungry working on their lines -- these guys are having a hard time buying gas or paying for the bus pass -- they really dont care about performance as long as it runs. the vw bug has had a great comeback. did d-c completely forget about the k car we havent. cheap and reliable cheap parts guarantee all the body and major parts will not change over the next 10 years unless there are faults or necessary improvements to be made hey they have been at this long enough that 90s technology in something like that is a no-brainer -- and use existing common parts already being manufactured here wherever they can. make it in 2 models with interchangeable body panels -- all with bench seats -- 2dr 2 seater club with 3 belts cab hatchback with fold-down seats in the back these should be equipped with lap belts with two sets of hookups for baby carriers auto trans optional awd unless they can do this cheap on all models no power accessories-- 4dr 4 seater with 6 belts hatchback station wagon with rear fold-seats and optional identical fold-down seats with same belts found in the 2dr with optional factory roof rack with built-in extension bars auto trans optional awd optional 4wd luxury editions can have power options -- and call it simply the chrysler k k station wagon k 4x4 -- gotta love those old amc eagles put their most reliable components in them and build them or begin moving that way this car helped build their reputation -- and how about designing them so the driver can see all four quarters i think minivans are on their way out -- at least in canada they are doing this in other industries -- what about buy nine get one free -- business incentive -- lets see the police drive around in them grn -- actually was thinking the parking police too but they dont deserve vehicles at all except to get away when someone is trying to assault them vbgrn my dad drove his k-car until it turned from beige to pink. his buddys teased him about his mary-k car while many drove expensive cars. he said he never worried about someone dinging him in the parking lot and his wife has the new car so he doesnt have to worry about getting a call from her -- and its the gentlemanly thing to do -- most had no response having the expensive cars for themselves. he always believed in driving a car into the ground -- and get two of the same thing. unless you need to downsize quickly or you are driving something soon to have problems or its a real peice of crap you bought it because you wanted it so look after it -- it doesnt have to be new -- my 88 dakota is a real babe waiting for motor installation -- bought it with cracked block -- i call it a perfect girly truck but my male neighbours would like to have it too! www3.sympatico.ca/rske projects the poor dakota -- it is very unfair -- toyota did this too -- their littlest trucks they upgraded in size to get more money for them and now there is a big hole in the market that suzuki and the unreliable envoy are filling rach ... .

From : tbone

why is it inevitable global recession its time for america to quit supporting dictatorships and communistic governments that milk the life out of their peoples while packing the pockets of the elite few. cut them loose and let them flounder without american monies. try replacing dictatorships and communistic governments with big business and large corporations and see what country your statement refers to then lol! -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : dori a schmetterling

q what was the qualification required for becoming chairman of the european central bank a ability to speak german.. das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- and yet we managed to prevent all of europe from speaking german lol! ... .

From : tbone

i am entertained by the idea that driving conditions in the usa are tougher than in the third world... and that inter-regional variation within the us is so great. oh man you should get out more. yes i know california isnt arizona isnt vermont weatherwise but still. das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- ... perhaps you think that is a real pounding but reality tells me that use in the states can be very harsh to a car that isnt designed here in the states. like it or not each region has its own design characteristics. stuff designed outside the states tends to be less than up to the task here in the states. i hate to say it but americans in general tend to be heavier than other humans. thus cars take more abuse. part of that is because we drive longer distances as we dont have the rail system nor the same lifestyle as europe or the middle east. another factor in those distances is the fact that we dont have restrictive borders as frequently as other regions do thus we drive farther more frequently. add to this that our fuel has traditionally been cheaper and you have yet another reason we drive a lot. i have yet to see a pick up truck from japan deal with the loads we dump on our pickups. this decade may see that opinion change in the half ton market. ... .

From : roy

in general those who resort to abuse have no argument to advance. das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- ... in general they are arrogant jerks who have nothing to say thats worth reading; ... .

From : roy

i still dont understand why someone would want to put a plow on such a vehicle a 4x4 with 160 wheelbase and a plow. what is to understand .

From : tbone

pooh bear wrote no. its about getting america off its lardy ass and competing at world standard productivity levels. i guess thats why most of daimlerchryslers recently announced managment layoffs were in drumroll please... germany! -p .

From : budd cochran

roy wrote on sun 29 jan 2006 101737 -0500 roy roy@home.net wrote no its about getting america to get off its lard butt and take back its industry but that would mean unions taking wage cuts and the epa being told to shut up and suck on a pine tree. how about we cut your pension or however you get paid. im so sick of hearing cut the employees wages as part of the cure all end all. who the hell here can afford a pay cut which would you rather have your pay cut or your job cut a lot of ford and gm workers are about to wish they had taken the pay cut... -- you folks continue with the same mantra. cut the workers wages. it is damn easy to say until it affects you. also the same bs it will be your job if you dont take a pay cut the jobs will go anyway. roy tell the truth roy youve become a slave to a cushy lifestyle. me i never had one so the medicare im on now is as good as it gets. and with your belief system why are you taking money away from hard working people. since you are contributing nothing you should get nothing after all your medicare is nothing more than a redistribution of wealth isnt it -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : scott en aztln

pooh bear wrote scott en aztl=e1n wrote so youre saying that despite working longer hours american workers sti= ll arent up to the task hint - its *what you do* during those hours - not some macho belief abou= t the value of the *number of hours* that counts. if you spend all your workti= me scratching your ass you wont be very productive ! graham interesting that you make this comment when years ago a friend that was a member of the uaw working for chrysler in their indianapolis indiana plant told me how as a union employee he could bring in a non-union laborer from a reserve labor pool to do his job while he went to the break room and sat on his butt every day. budd who posts where he darn well pleases .

From : scott en aztln

on sun 29 jan 2006 113032 -0500 roy roy@home.net wrote which would you rather have your pay cut or your job cut a lot of ford and gm workers are about to wish they had taken the pay cut... -- you folks continue with the same mantra. cut the workers wages. it is damn easy to say until it affects you. also the same bs it will be your job if you dont take a pay cut the jobs will go anyway. its all about the burn rate. you can lose your job today or you can accept a pay cut and lose your job tomorrow. the latter allows you to keep a roof over your head and food on your table while you look for another job. and who knows your company might even pull it out of the nosedive and you might actually get to keep your job. apparently you prefer to continue to collect an inflated paycheck and all your other bennies and fired sooner instead of later. hope all the uaw workers out there are socking those big fat paychecks away for the rainy days that are coming... -- what the heck ill play too. - dave .

From : scott en aztln

95 dodge ram 1500 4x4 auto 5.9 liter tran slipped badly once warmed up. changed trans. now the truck will not start. starter spins engine properly. no fuel in fuel rail. checked fuel pump relay and it is good. i bypassed the fuel pump relay and the fuel pump worked properly. it has fuel pressure in fuel rail only when i bypass the fuel pump relay. it will not start even with fuel pressure in the rail. i plugged into the computer test plug and got and connection error. i adjusted plug several times and got the same error message with the key off or on. power goes to the fuel pump relay from battery and ignition switch. ive rechecked the wiring harness and am sure that i have plugged in all of the wires that i unplugged. .

From : scott en aztln

on mon 30 jan 2006 132051 gmt tom lawrence tnloaswpraemnmcien5g@earthlink.net wrote sensible trimming fixes that as per my post . yep... and of course everyone does that right re-read the original post - people who fail to trim their quoted text properly are every bit as bad a top-posters. in fact posters often commit both offenses in the same post they hit reply type in their response at the top of the edit buffer and then hit send - their quoted text comes along as unneeded excess bandwidth-wasting baggage. -- what the heck ill play too. - dave .

From : roy

if you want efficiency ride a bicycle. for the caloric input they return 90+% efficiency in transportation. i used to get 16 miles to the 12 oz soda on my schwinn . . . . budd dtj wrote we drive cars more because they are more efficient. if they were not we would choose other methods of transportation. if there was an efficient for me method of transport to my work i would take it but there is not. there is virtually no efficient method of public transportation in the us. ************************* dave .

From : tbone

tbone wrote and the funny thing here is that all of these pay cuts come from the workers never from the owners or upper management. perhaps if the salaries of these big execs were brought back into reality we would also be far more competitive but god forbid that ever happens. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving i got a better idea tom figure up how many people are in this group and divide all your profits including your own wages among us all. i mean im unable to work and dont you want to support those that cannot work that is what you want every business to do isnt it that means you should do it too. at its best its called socialism at its worst its called communism tom. budd .

From : budd cochran

roy wrote on sun 29 jan 2006 101737 -0500 roy roy@home.net wrote no its about getting america to get off its lard butt and take back its industry but that would mean unions taking wage cuts and the epa being told to shut up and suck on a pine tree. how about we cut your pension or however you get paid. im so sick of hearing cut the employees wages as part of the cure all end all. who the hell here can afford a pay cut which would you rather have your pay cut or your job cut a lot of ford and gm workers are about to wish they had taken the pay cut... -- you folks continue with the same mantra. cut the workers wages. it is damn easy to say until it affects you. also the same bs it will be your job if you dont take a pay cut the jobs will go anyway. roy tell the truth roy youve become a slave to a cushy lifestyle. me i never had one so the medicare im on now is as good as it gets. ya want me to try a cut btdt friend. and lived quite well just didnt have a new car boat house huge college funds for my kids vacations in the bahamas scraped up every penny for every bill of rediculous proportions caused by the overpaid union employees but im still making it. the kids were always well dressed we always had a roof over our heads the food on the table was alwatys wholesome if not fancy and we slept without worring about someone wanting to steal what we have. and we were happy to be alive. ask yourself what you could really do without if you had to. budd .

From : tbone

tbone wrote there is no way to compete fairly with countries that pay their workers next to nothing its not the *countries* that pay those workers its the factories that employ them. often owned by american companies. americans love low labour costs for cheap imports but only when it doesnt threaten their own jobs. oh. and the european countries are immune to this lol! -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : steve

roy . 222 311320 8uednzcf-a0nzepervn-qg@comcast.com roy wrote on sun 29 jan 2006 101737 -0500 roy roy@home.net wrote no its about getting america to get off its lard butt and take back its industry but that would mean unions taking wage cuts and the epa being told to shut up and suck on a pine tree. how about we cut your pension or however you get paid. im so sick of hearing cut the employees wages as part of the cure all end all. who the hell here can afford a pay cut which would you rather have your pay cut or your job cut a lot of ford and gm workers are about to wish they had taken the pay cut... -- you folks continue with the same mantra. cut the workers wages. it is damn easy to say until it affects you. also the same bs it will be your job if you dont take a pay cut the jobs will go anyway. roy tell the truth roy youve become a slave to a cushy lifestyle. ive grown accustomed to the style that i have worked for. me i never had one what a life or style so the medicare im on now is as good as it gets. you must be happy that all the union folks that are making big bucks are there to pay into medicare to care for you. ya want me to try a cut btdt friend. yup a precentage so that you contribute too. and lived quite well just didnt have a new car boat house huge college funds for my kids vacations in the bahamas scraped up every penny for every bill of rediculous proportions caused by the overpaid union employees ya know it seems you have to blame sombody for everything that went on in your life. you chose your employment. stop crying about it. but im still making it. the kids were always well dressed we always had a roof over our heads the food on the table was alwatys wholesome if not fancy and we slept without worring about someone wanting to steal what we have. likewise. and we were happy to be alive. aint life great! ask yourself what you could really do without if you had to. budd just about everybody who has a income can adjust their lifestyle downward if needed. roy budd .

From : tbone

funny i didnt realize that cars were the only thing produced outside of the us silly me. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving pooh bear wrote tbone wrote there is no way that we can compete with gubberment subsidized third and second world countries what makes you think they are subsidised graham they make cars cheaper than americans ergo they must be subsidised. is that right huw .

From : tbone

i still dont understand why someone would want to put a plow on such a vehicle -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving was out with a friend looking at the new mega cabs. what a damn disappointment. a suppoosedly hd 4x4 truck that you cant put a plow on if you get the cummins engine. so on a truck with the msrp over $54k the front end is so marginal that it cant handle a snow plow that will cost dc some customers. i know my friend is going looking at ford and i dont blame him. roy wow that really surprises me too. thank you roy for posting this. i was close to purchasing a mega cab but after finding your post i doubt i will. i just naturally assumed an hd truck would accomodate a plow. i am going to have to start pricing out the quad cab 2500 ctd instead. i am amazed that dodge would have made an oversight such as this. its too bad the mega cab would have been perfect for me. would you by any chance know whether it is the suspension or the axle assembly itself not being up to par im glad i discovered this group lots of knowledgeable people with great info to share. cheers mike c .

From : budd cochran

on mon 30 jan 2006 073243 +0000 pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote thats why you delete stuff youre not directly responding to just like i did. maybe moving the mouse is too tricky for these guys not too tricky - just too much work. -- what the heck ill play too. - dave .

From : tbone

lol! budd your bitterness and ignorance is reaching all time highs. how does this in any way show socialism or communism if the company does poorly then all should share in the responsibility not just the workers and if pay cuts are needed to return profitability then the high level execs should also be getting those cuts not bonuses for screwing up. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving gee why didnt you say that sooner you want socialsm / communism in america now . . . budd tbone wrote the problem here max is this is a german company. i am talking about the american companies that lay off 500 workers and then give the ceo a 10000000 salary increase and bonuses for raising the profit margin. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving actually tbone look at what zeitsche is about to do at dc...... cut management jobs. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author no its about getting america to get off its lard butt and take back its industry but that would mean unions taking wage cuts and the epa being told to shut up and suck on a pine tree. how about we cut your pension or however you get paid. im so sick of hearing cut the employees wages as part of the cure all end all. who the hell here can afford a pay cut and the funny thing here is that all of these pay cuts come from the workers never from the owners or upper management. perhaps if the salaries of these big execs were brought back into reality we would also be far more competitive but god forbid that ever happens. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

well considering that the overwhelming majority of vehicles in the us are gasoline powered the use of bio-diesel does nothing for the majority. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving at this risk of starting a further argument. im a proponet of alternative fuels but i dont believe hydrogen or hybrid to be it. i believe we could use bio fuels more readily the distribution infastructure is already inplace and is practically a infanately renuable resorce. it uses vegtible oil and ethonal both plant based. infact if you can believe the local paper shell oil is installing a bio fuel station just 4 miles from my home and the station is already under construction. -- -chris 05 ctd 99 durango comments4u comments4u@nospam.mindspring.com.invalid wrote but there is always opportunity. with the added weight lee iacocca may be tagging chrysler dodge and jeep commercials with built like a mercedes. of course if that turns out to be true chrysler financial will soon be in the business of offering car equity loans for the repair bills. some of these companies just keep missing the point. they could sustain some corporate fat if they produced leaner i.e. energy efficient products. an suv for example that gets 50mpg would sell like hot cakes as would a sedan thats as economical. the price of gas is only going to go up as asian nations consume more of it and compete for it on the world market. anyone who has any sense and whos in the market for a new automobile is going to buy the most economical vehicle that fits their needs. chrysler needs to produce more energy efficient cars that are safer and more reliable. when it does that its financial problems will go away. likewise for gm and ford. .

From : bill putney

ok i take it back you really suck!!!!! what is the length / width it looks like 40 x 50. that thing is huge. did you have to have anything special done to the floor when it was poured to deal with the lifts especially the 2 post one -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving nice garage. how big is that thing and btw you suck!!! - yeah.... i know. about 2000 sq. ft. some more pictures here http//home.earthlink.net/tlawrence53/ .

From : bill putney

pooh bear wrote bill putney wrote roy wrote no its about getting america to get off its lard butt and take back its industry but that would mean unions taking wage cuts and the epa being told to shut up and suck on a pine tree. how about we cut your pension or however you get paid. im so sick of hearing cut the employees wages as part of the cure all end all. who the hell here can afford a pay cut roy obviously roy you have problems with cause-effect thinking. if you apply for a commodity-type job and another guy is applying for the same job and he demands less money to accept employment which do you think will get hired if you can answer that question then you have the logic skills to address the above issue. if not then... how many ppl are in any postion to *demand* their remuneration outside a select few well then change the word demands to requires. the phrase demands less money to accept employment fits what i was saying. geez louise. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : budd cochran

tbone wrote and the funny thing here is that all of these pay cuts come from the workers never from the owners or upper management. perhaps if the salaries of these big execs were brought back into reality we would also be far more competitive but god forbid that ever happens. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving i got a better idea tom figure up how many people are in this group and divide all your profits including your own wages among us all. i mean im unable to work and dont you want to support those that cannot work what does this crap have to do with what i said oh thats right not a damn thing. that is what you want every business to do isnt it that means you should do it too. how does bringing high level execs salaries into reality translate into this oh thats right it doesnt! at its best its called socialism at its worst its called communism tom. at best your a bitter idiot budd. if the company needs to reduce costs why should the upper management be immune to that cost cutting especially when they are the biggest expense. if the average worker is making $40000 why should the ceo be making $10000000 plus perks -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : budd cochran

tbone wrote no its about getting america to get off its lard butt and take back its industry but that would mean unions taking wage cuts and the epa being told to shut up and suck on a pine tree. sorry budd but this is incorrect. there is no way that we can compete with gubberment subsidized third and second world countries unless of course you are willing to kill the american dream and have the workers live like those in second and third world countries including the poverty and pollution. yes there is. if you want to buy american it needs to be owned and built here. and the only way that will happen is by forcing some types of trade restrictions. and this is the way. japan and germany didnt lose ww ii they just waited and bought us off. on this we agree and they did it by playing on our short sightedness and greed. no its because we let them set the proportions to import / export ratios and tariffs and then accepted them. budd .

From : pooh bear

and there is no such thing as cable dsl. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving budd cochran wrote now with cable dsl for example top posting makes sense so you get to the reply much faster. what ridiculous nonsense. graham .

From : pooh bear

was out with a friend looking at the new mega cabs. what a damn disappointment. a suppoosedly hd 4x4 truck that you cant put a plow on if you get the cummins engine. so on a truck with the msrp over $54k the front end is so marginal that it cant handle a snow plow that will cost dc some customers. i know my friend is going looking at ford and i dont blame him. roy wow that really surprises me too. thank you roy for posting this. i was close to purchasing a mega cab but after finding your post i doubt i will. i just naturally assumed an hd truck would accomodate a plow. i am going to have to start pricing out the quad cab 2500 ctd instead. i am amazed that dodge would have made an oversight such as this. its too bad the mega cab would have been perfect for me. would you by any chance know whether it is the suspension or the axle assembly itself not being up to par im glad i discovered this group lots of knowledgeable people with great info to share. cheers mike c .

From : tbone

budd cochran wrote now with cable dsl for example top posting makes sense so you get to the reply much faster. what ridiculous nonsense. graham .

From : budd cochran

on sun 29 jan 2006 153124 -0500 roy roy@home.net wrote i guess that some are all consumed about what are supposed rules and guidelines. or perhaps they touch themselves too much. screwem. when i read a post by a top-poster i automatically plonk them. in general they are arrogant jerks who have nothing to say thats worth reading; the vitriolic blurb quoted above is a perfect example. -- what the heck ill play too. - dave .

From : scott en aztln

roy wrote no its about getting america to get off its lard butt and take back its industry but that would mean unions taking wage cuts and the epa being told to shut up and suck on a pine tree. how about we cut your pension or however you get paid. im so sick of hearing cut the employees wages as part of the cure all end all. who the hell here can afford a pay cut roy sarcasm at warp factor 30000 oh i forgot i cant comment on your god and master the union. sure ya can. like i said budd. how about you and a pay cut a true railroad man you are. sure am. sarcasm back to impulse speed roy did you ever stop to really look at a big part of why you cant afford a pay cut i can everybody can by adjusting their life style. i certainly will when i retire. what amazes me is that is usually sombody wanting to tear down sombody else to make a point. so to follow how about a pay cut budd your pretty free with tossing my pay caheck around how about you. doesnt sound to damn good does it unions demand more manufacturers raise prices to pay union demands unions demand more to pay higher prices caused by previous demands. ad nauseum. when was the last time you heard of a railroad strike looks like the railroads and their unions agreed on contracts. hmmm.... they demand decent wages paid medical to include family worker safty a 40 hour work week paid holidays paid vacations. just a few of the things that you probably have enjoyed and have not had to do a damn thing to get. do you really believe that these benifits we just handed out by the corperations. get a clue will ya! not to say that there are not a few unions that have screwed their members. but most do a decent job representing their membership. so where is the problem budd is it really the unions or is it with the owners seeking to maximize their profit your own employers have gone thru the same crap themselves and now the once mighty rail industry is a subsidized pauper... csx bn are subsidized care to name a passenger rairoad that is not subsidized hauling people is not profitable. that is why every frieght railroad stopped doing it. the welfare recipient of the american industrial world. roy part of your income is paid by every taxpayer in the usa thanks to union demands. really then the taxpayer is screwing a bunch of people. the folks at amtrak have not had a raise in over 7 years. but i bet you have had a few colas in you check though your income is paid by who roy add to that a government that prints up dollars to try and buy its way ot of debt and bingo! welcome to modern america. budd .

From : budd cochran

because he suffers from the i-wanna-be-the-moderator syndrome. sure usenet rules suggest bottom posting but then those rules have never been brought up to modern internet standards. way back when bottom posting was fine because modem speeds limiting the size of threads . . it took much longer to post a huge reply so you kept things brief. now with cable dsl for example top posting makes sense so you get to the reply much faster. of course the other usenet rules rarely gets used the one about trimming posts as topics evolve. budd tom lawrence wrote top-posted and un-trimmed mr. bude. can some one explain to me why people have such a bug up their butt about top-posting i find it much more convenient when reading through a thread... .

From : budd cochran

on sun 29 jan 2006 190212 gmt tom lawrence tnloaswpraemnmcien5g@earthlink.net wrote top-posted and un-trimmed mr. bude. can some one explain to me why people have such a bug up their butt about top-posting go to your bookshelf and open up any book. is it written from top to bottom or bottom to top now take down another book - same thing take down a few more - my god are they all like that -- what the heck ill play too. - dave .

From : budd cochran

gee why didnt you say that sooner you want socialsm / communism in america now . . . budd tbone wrote the problem here max is this is a german company. i am talking about the american companies that lay off 500 workers and then give the ceo a 10000000 salary increase and bonuses for raising the profit margin. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving actually tbone look at what zeitsche is about to do at dc...... cut management jobs. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author no its about getting america to get off its lard butt and take back its industry but that would mean unions taking wage cuts and the epa being told to shut up and suck on a pine tree. how about we cut your pension or however you get paid. im so sick of hearing cut the employees wages as part of the cure all end all. who the hell here can afford a pay cut and the funny thing here is that all of these pay cuts come from the workers never from the owners or upper management. perhaps if the salaries of these big execs were brought back into reality we would also be far more competitive but god forbid that ever happens. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : budd cochran

roy wrote no its about getting america to get off its lard butt and take back its industry but that would mean unions taking wage cuts and the epa being told to shut up and suck on a pine tree. how about we cut your pension or however you get paid. im so sick of hearing cut the employees wages as part of the cure all end all. who the hell here can afford a pay cut roy sarcasm at warp factor 30000 oh i forgot i cant comment on your god and master the union. a true railroad man you are. sarcasm back to impulse speed roy did you ever stop to really look at a big part of why you cant afford a pay cut unions demand more manufacturers raise prices to pay union demands unions demand more to pay higher prices caused by previous demands. ad nauseum. your own employers have gone thru the same crap themselves and now the once mighty rail industry is a subsidized pauper... the welfare recipient of the american industrial world. roy part of your income is paid by every taxpayer in the usa thanks to union demands. add to that a government that prints up dollars to try and buy its way ot of debt and bingo! welcome to modern america. budd .

From : pooh bear

go to www.carfax.com i am considering a 1999 dodge durango slt plus with over 200000 km on it. i test drove it and was very please with it. the dealer claims that it has not been in any accident. what should i check before buying it -- duanecay ------------------------------------------------------------------------ view this thread http//www.carstalk.net/viewtopic-381008.html send from http//www.carstalk.net .

From : roy

tbone wrote ok folks a friend and i were discussing the first generation chrysler electronic ignition. he says you can use one as a transistor ignition module by connecting a set of points to pin # 4. i disagree. theres a 12 pack of pepsi one riding on who is right. thanks folks! if you connect a set of points to pin 4 then you have effectively bypassed the electronic ignition and turned it back into a standard point type ignition since pin 4 is what the big transistor actually controls so you are correct budd. how can that be when pin # 4 is one of the pins to the control side of the transistor and not directly to a coil connection the transistor would act like a backwards diode. pin # 5 is a redundant ground to the distributor pickup so no point connection there would work. my mistake. i forgot about the screwed up pin out numbering of that ecu and my manual does not number them and it was late and i just counted around the connector. as for pin 4 it needs a voltage to be applied and removed there to trigger the ecu and a set of points directly connected to ground as most are would not supply that and therefore have no effect. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : budd cochran

why would they do that when mercedes already builds them. i would think that if they left cummins they would go their especially since it is also owned by daimler. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving just curious. ed .

From : pooh bear

tbone wrote there is no way to compete fairly with countries that pay their workers next to nothing its not the *countries* that pay those workers its the factories that employ them. often owned by american companies. americans love low labour costs for cheap imports but only when it doesnt threaten their own jobs. graham .

From : huw

just curious. no. .

From : tbone

huw wrote budd cochran wrote no its about getting america to get off its lard butt and take back its industry but that would mean unions taking wage cuts and the epa being told to shut up and suck on a pine tree. if you want to buy american it needs to be owned and built here. japan and germany didnt lose ww ii they just waited and bought us off. thats put me off jaguar volvo saab land rover ford vauxhall and all the other american owned brands we buy in europe then. f*** um foreign things. well buy european domestic products like renault fiat and peugeot instead. but wait how does nationalism and protectionism help all those american ford and gm brands oh it doesnt it guarantees even bigger losses for them. perhaps americans only believe in free trade when the going is good for them yes that is probably it. fact is there is only one way to stem those losses at ford and gm and that is for them to become more efficient and trade their way out. it can be done. just look at the example of nissan which under french management has been transformed from imminent bancruptcy to a modern success story in less than ten years. there is nothing magical about japanese or german industry. just look at the present debacle at mitsubishi which daimler/chrysler could not turn around. no america needs to rein in its trade freedoms. its become too lax in allowing other countries to bring their stuff to america while putting rediculous tariffs on american imported goods. if you want a global recession where you are absolutely guaranteed to have fewer sales and total business failures then certainly go protectionist. if you want continued relitive prosperity and employment then become competitive and grow your economy. there is no stopping china and other major competitors becoming more prosperous because they are coming around to the american way of doing business. if enough trade is done both ways then both economies win. obviously america has more to lose and china has more to win but what you need is a win/win situation. it is inevitable though that china will become a stronger economy than the usa in the medium term. huw why is it inevitable global recession its time for america to quit supporting dictatorships and communistic governments that milk the life out of their peoples while packing the pockets of the elite few. cut them loose and let them flounder without american monies. budd .

From : huw

tbone wrote ok folks a friend and i were discussing the first generation chrysler electronic ignition. he says you can use one as a transistor ignition module by connecting a set of points to pin # 4. i disagree. theres a 12 pack of pepsi one riding on who is right. thanks folks! if you connect a set of points to pin 4 then you have effectively bypassed the electronic ignition and turned it back into a standard point type ignition since pin 4 is what the big transistor actually controls so you are correct budd. how can that be when pin # 4 is one of the pins to the control side of the transistor and not directly to a coil connection the transistor would act like a backwards diode. pin # 5 is a redundant ground to the distributor pickup so no point connection there would work. youre not making sense tom. budd .

From : max dodge

really overpopulation is the main culprit also in most problems on earth. .....the poor earth is being raped environmentally by this swarm of parasites humans. ...its funny i talk of overpopulation and no one ever replies. apathy and ignorance. hey parasite walk the talk. take a gun and put a bullet in your head and take the first step towards solving the overpopulation problem. stupid is as stupid does and you sir are proof positive. look first what i replied to above. hitler was the last person i heard of referring to humans as parasites. cp .

From : 223rem

max dodge wrote your costs for car travel of 220 miles miles in the uk sounds odd to me..... are roughly 30 which seem low a typical figure for the cost of running a car that would be allowable by the taxman that icludes depreciation maintenance and other costs in addition to fuel would be around 40p a mile. that 220 mile jouney equates to 88 by that measure. graham .

From : tbone

tom lawrence wrote top-posted and un-trimmed mr. bude. can some one explain to me why people have such a bug up their butt about top-posting i find it much more convenient when reading through a thread... thats because you imbeciles fail to remove the irrelevant text. so what happens you have a bunch of morons adding a few lines to the top of a preceding long article. .

From : max dodge

on sun 29 jan 2006 115819 gmt greg surratt glsurratt@verizon.net wrote on sun 29 jan 2006 044754 gmt tbone tbonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote g neither of the usas big two are in so much trouble that they are being forced into chapter 11 . . . yet! . . . despite the fact that one of gms big pushes this year will be for its big suvs. and i just found this at least ford motor co. did in determining how best to introduce the redesigned 2007 ford expedition suv and the new supersize ford expedition el which will hit showrooms this fall. you can see fords spin here http//www.det.com/apps/pbcs.dll/articleaid=/20060129/auto01/601290341/1149/rss26 they can spin it all they want the massive upcoming layoffs and plant closures say all that needs to be said. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : budd cochran

budd cochran wrote no its about getting america to get off its lard butt and take back its industry but that would mean unions taking wage cuts and the epa being told to shut up and suck on a pine tree. if you want to buy american it needs to be owned and built here. japan and germany didnt lose ww ii they just waited and bought us off. thats put me off jaguar volvo saab land rover ford vauxhall and all the other american owned brands we buy in europe then. f*** um foreign things. well buy european domestic products like renault fiat and peugeot instead. but wait how does nationalism and protectionism help all those american ford and gm brands oh it doesnt it guarantees even bigger losses for them. complete bullshit. as far as ford and gm go they did dig their own hole by stuffing their heads as far up their collective asses as they possibly could while toyota and honda were building fuel efficient vehicles at a loss to get good at it but americans love to drive and if they were forced to buy gm and ford they would. perhaps americans only believe in free trade when the going is good for them yes that is probably it. more showing of your lack of intelligence i see. there is a big difference free trade and fair trade and there is no way to compete fairly with countries that pay their workers next to nothing and have no concerns for environmental impacts or the safety of those workers. the only thing that works here are tarrifs and trade restrictions. fact is there is only one way to stem those losses at ford and gm and that is for them to become more efficient and trade their way out. it can be done. just look at the example of nissan which under french management has been transformed from imminent bancruptcy to a modern success story in less than ten years. there is nothing magical about japanese or german industry. just look at the present debacle at mitsubishi which daimler/chrysler could not turn around. i guess that the european industry isnt so perfect after all. if you want a global recession where you are absolutely guaranteed to have fewer sales and total business failures then certainly go protectionist. if you want continued relitive prosperity and employment then become competitive and grow your economy. complete horseshit. in order to be competative you need to be on at least somewhat equal footing and that is simply not the case. now if you are saying that if america went full protectionist that it would cause a global resession you are probably right but all that indicates is that the rest of the global economy is really not much more than a bunch of leaches draining the lifes blood out of this country. quite sad really that we are too damn stupid and greedy to correct it. there is no stopping china and other major competitors becoming more prosperous because they are coming around to the american way of doing business. sure there is. ms does it all of the time and we still have the power to do it. the only thing that is stopping is is our greed which sadly will reduce us to a second world country with nothing but a few very rich and the rest of us quite poor within the next 10 or so years. if enough trade is done both ways then both economies win. and if santa clause were real then their would be millions of happy children throughout the world and both have the same base in reality. the only way this will ever happen is through trade restrictions to force them to buy our products or make it profitable to build some of them here. obviously america has more to lose and china has more to win but what you need is a win/win situation. what we need and what we will get in the current situation are two very different things. it is inevitable though that china will become a stronger economy than the usa in the medium term. i agree but the rich dont really care as they will still be rich and possibly increase their wealth from it and the rest seem to be either too stupid or ignorant to do anything about it. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : christopher thompson

jay lenos occasional segment stuff we found on ebay is living proof that some people will bid on anything and a fool & his money are soon parted. jeeze just imagine what that thing would cost to ship. the mailman would be wearing a truss. yes the shipping would cost more than its worth as scrap iron but someone still might bid on it. something like that could make it on the tonight show. -- ken .

From : bill putney

really overpopulation is the main culprit also in most problems on earth. .....the poor earth is being raped environmentally by this swarm of parasites humans. ...its funny i talk of overpopulation and no one ever replies. apathy and ignorance. hey parasite walk the talk. take a gun and put a bullet in your head and take the first step towards solving the overpopulation problem. cp .

From : dtj

on sun 29 jan 2006 122119 -0500 bill putney bptn@kinez.net wrote calling it a mantra does not make it an invalid point. the post you originally responded to did not *only* mention pay cuts. it also mentioned epa regulations. you cant isolate any one point as a cause/cure. typically the same people who are the union protectionists are also in favor of internal legislation and international agreements that ultimately force jobs overseas. both points have to be addressed together. an open market eventually equalizes everything out - change or die. and what is even more amazing is how the idiots who blindly support the democratic party by allowing their union to tell them how to vote and spend their money on democrats are the same idiots who are losing their jobs to stupid epa regulations imposed on them by the same democrats. i am in favor of reasonable environmental laws and i am in favor of reasonable job protections. but in this country the unions have fucked over our economy by preventing the poor employees from being told to shape up or ship out. in illinois there are schools granting tenure after just 2 years. that hardly is fair to students and tax payers. ************************* dave .

From : tbone

personally i think it was one of the best systems ever made and should have been adapted to chrysler computerized cars just to give a less expensive ignition repair. crank trigger input to a computer run timing program then to the ecu and then output to run the coil. the computer would be cheaper to replace since it could use a smaller trigger transistor. budd ace wrote budd i swaped my 72 dodge 318 to a transistor by doing this. took a module from a 73 318 van. not sure about the pin numbers though. also had to add a different resistor block. made it a different pu in a hurry. better low end torque and it cleaned out the carbon etc in about a week. bob az .

From : tom lawrence

pooh bear wrote huw wrote pooh bear wrote huw wrote fuel use per passenger mile is higher by train you are barking mad ! graham no. the carriages of a train are much heavier in relation to payload compared to a five seater family car and a fully occupied family car will be more economical per passenger mile. youre barking mad. trains use far less energy notably because of the low rolling resistance of steel wheels on rails. a train carriage can carry about 100 ppl. a 2 ton car rarely carries more than 4. seat for seat the train carriage or car is significantly *lighter* - i.e. they dont weigh 50 tons ! now then. i have done a little research and the figures are worse than even i thought. even relitively light weight trains weigh more than two tons per passenger seat which is about ten times that of a typical light car. this obviously takes account of the weight of the engine or locomotive. the very low rolling resistance of a steel wheel on a rail is partially canceled out by the high weight of passenger trains. the higher weight also means more energy used for accelerating and climbing hills although some of this could be recovered by coasting and regenerative braking. aerodynamic drag is low for a train at moderate speed but increases rapidly with the square of the speed. thus one may say that passenger trains are potentially energy efficient but in actual practice such trains turn out to be little more energy-efficient than the motor car. neither private ownership nor government monopoly has been very efficient in providing a passenger service at economic cost. huw .

From : huw

sure they burn more fuel and cost a little more to maintain but if you tow heavy and often you will get your moneys worth. if the job i have now goes away than i am concidering delivering campers. i see a lot different configurations out there. probably 95% of them are lb drw. i think the lb is a requirement for most companies. looks like the cummings is the mose reliable with duramax coming in second. this determination is made from seeing what is on the road. anyhow if i change trades looks like ill get a qc lb drw dodge. of course id that that in this group g. dave -- the older i get the fewer things seem worth waiting in line for. .

From : pooh bear

pooh bear wrote huw wrote pooh bear wrote tbone wrote there is no way that we can compete with gubberment subsidized third and second world countries what makes you think they are subsidised graham they make cars cheaper than americans ergo they must be subsidised. is that right huw i presume that must be mr tbones thinking if think is the right word to use ! . yes. it is certainly not my belief. huw .

From : cp

scott en aztln wrote on sun 29 jan 2006 101737 -0500 roy roy@home.net wrote no its about getting america to get off its lard butt and take back its industry but that would mean unions taking wage cuts and the epa being told to shut up and suck on a pine tree. how about we cut your pension or however you get paid. im so sick of hearing cut the employees wages as part of the cure all end all. who the hell here can afford a pay cut which would you rather have your pay cut or your job cut a lot of ford and gm workers are about to wish they had taken the pay cut... or maybe even a reduction in benefits those benefits are no good if youre no longer entitled to them ! it seems to me like american auto workers reckon they deserve to be immune to changes in the the economy. anyone with views that wacky deserves to lose their job. graham .

From : pooh bear

bill putney wrote roy wrote no its about getting america to get off its lard butt and take back its industry but that would mean unions taking wage cuts and the epa being told to shut up and suck on a pine tree. how about we cut your pension or however you get paid. im so sick of hearing cut the employees wages as part of the cure all end all. who the hell here can afford a pay cut roy obviously roy you have problems with cause-effect thinking. if you apply for a commodity-type job and another guy is applying for the same job and he demands less money to accept employment which do you think will get hired if you can answer that question then you have the logic skills to address the above issue. if not then... how many ppl are in any postion to *demand* their remuneration outside a select few graham .

From : huw

i am considering a 1999 dodge durango slt plus with over 200000 km on it. i test drove it and was very please with it. the dealer claims that it has not been in any accident. what should i check before buying it -- duanecay ----------------------------------------------------------------------- view this thread http//www.carstalk.net/viewtopic-381008.htm send from http//www.carstalk.ne .

From : pooh bear

huw wrote pooh bear wrote tbone wrote there is no way that we can compete with gubberment subsidized third and second world countries what makes you think they are subsidised graham they make cars cheaper than americans ergo they must be subsidised. is that right huw i presume that must be mr tbones thinking if think is the right word to use ! . graham .

From : huw

pooh bear wrote tbone wrote there is no way that we can compete with gubberment subsidized third and second world countries what makes you think they are subsidised graham they make cars cheaper than americans ergo they must be subsidised. is that right huw .

From : huw

tbone wrote there is no way that we can compete with gubberment subsidized third and second world countries what makes you think they are subsidised graham .

From : huw

pooh bear wrote huw wrote pooh bear wrote huw wrote fuel use per passenger mile is higher by train you are barking mad ! graham no. the carriages of a train are much heavier in relation to payload compared to a five seater family car and a fully occupied family car will be more economical per passenger mile. youre barking mad. trains use far less energy notably because of the low rolling resistance of steel wheels on rails. a train carriage can carry about 100 ppl. a 2 ton car rarely carries more than 4. a two ton car is a big beast. better example is a 1.25 ton car or 312kg per passenger. an average carriage can seat around 70 from memory so to equal the car it would need to be under 22 tons seat for seat the train carriage or car is significantly *lighter* - i.e. they dont weigh 50 tons ! it is my belief that an intercity train carriage weighs some 60 tons which is nearly three times the weight per person compared with a car to which you need to add the considerable weight of the engine. now if you have evidence that carriages are very much lighter then i would be willing to accept it. huw .

From : huw

pooh bear wrote max dodge wrote your costs for car travel of 220 miles miles in the uk sounds odd to me..... are roughly 30 which seem low a typical figure for the cost of running a car that would be allowable by the taxman that icludes depreciation maintenance and other costs in addition to fuel would be around 40p a mile. that 220 mile jouney equates to 88 by that measure. yes but my one of my cars costs over 1 a mile and the panda only costs 0.25 a mile. forget parking for simplicity then a 440 mile round trip in the panda would total 110 while a train trip to london would also cost 110 return for 1 person plus the cost of getting to the station and back at 20. so one person by train would cost 130 just 20 more than the train but four people cost a ridiculous 520 the same four people travelling by panda would cost 110 divided by four equals only 27.50 each. even in the range rover they would cost only 440 or 110 each which is cheaper than the same four would travel by train. huw t .

From : tbone

max dodge wrote curious then that where cars do take a real pouding such as in india the locally made padmini is a fiat dericative and in many middle eastern and african countries that peugeots stand up well to the task. perhaps you think that is a real pounding but reality tells me that use in the states can be very harsh to a car that isnt designed here in the states. lol. like it or not each region has its own design characteristics. stuff designed outside the states tends to be less than up to the task here in the states. i hate to say it but americans in general tend to be heavier than other humans. thus cars take more abuse. yeah right! i weigh 300lbs and have never had a problem. i have never even heard of problems with cars due to weight of cargo although i do know of one ford mondeo that has settled on its springs a bit after 200000 miles. a new set of springs would see it back as new. part of that is because we drive longer distances as we dont have the rail system nor the same lifestyle as europe or the middle east. so you are saying now that it is easier on the car in the states. certainly long distances are infinitely easier than the narrow twisty lanes we have in europe although our freeways generally have average speeds of 80mph or so. another factor in those distances is the fact that we dont have restrictive borders as frequently as other regions do thus we drive farther more frequently. still easier on a car. in africa half the distances would be on unmetalled roads and similarly in india and pakistan. have you watched the and seen what driving conditions are like there add to this that our fuel has traditionally been cheaper and you have yet another reason we drive a lot. i fail to see how driving a lot is relevant except that you do fewer cold starts per mile. 200000 miles is the same distance wherever you are. i have yet to see a pick up truck from japan deal with the loads we dump on our pickups. this decade may see that opinion change in the half ton market. half ton eh i dont think there are many pick-ups sold in europe with a payload of less than a ton but there you go. most of your pick-ups seem to carry not a lot more than fishing tackle. huw .

From : tbone

on sun 29 jan 2006 214031 -0700 budd cochran mr-d150@preciscom spam.net wrote ok folks a friend and i were discussing the first generation chrysler electronic ignition. he says you can use one as a transistor ignition module by connecting a set of points to pin # 4. i disagree. theres a 12 pack of pepsi one riding on who is right. thanks folks! budd yeah right like werre supposed to believe you have any friends! beekeep .

From : pooh bear

really overpopulation is the main culprit also in most problems on earth. .....the poor earth is being raped environmentally by this swarm of parasites humans. ...its funny i talk of overpopulation and no one ever replies. apathy and ignorance. hey parasite walk the talk. take a gun and put a bullet in your head and take the first step towards solving the overpopulation problem. stupid is as stupid does and you sir are proof positive. look first what i replied to above. hitler was the last person i heard of referring to humans as parasites. even still telling someone to kill themselves is pretty ignorant dude. as for his parasite comment he is sadly correct. all we seem do anymore is take and destroy and we are getting very efficient at doing it. just because you dont want to hear it doesnt make it any less true. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : arif khokar

no its about getting america to get off its lard butt and take back its industry but that would mean unions taking wage cuts and the epa being told to shut up and suck on a pine tree. sorry budd but this is incorrect. there is no way that we can compete with gubberment subsidized third and second world countries unless of course you are willing to kill the american dream and have the workers live like those in second and third world countries including the poverty and pollution. if you want to buy american it needs to be owned and built here. and the only way that will happen is by forcing some types of trade restrictions. japan and germany didnt lose ww ii they just waited and bought us off. on this we agree and they did it by playing on our short sightedness and greed. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : pooh bear

arif khokar wrote tom lawrence wrote no and i dont read page 1 then page 1-2 then page 1-3 1-4 etc. when reading down through a thread its helpful to ignore all the crap that ive already read... thats why you delete stuff youre not directly responding to just like i did. maybe moving the mouse is too tricky for these guys graham .

From : pooh bear

tom lawrence wrote no and i dont read page 1 then page 1-2 then page 1-3 1-4 etc. when reading down through a thread its helpful to ignore all the crap that ive already read... thats why you delete stuff youre not directly responding to just like i did. .

From : pooh bear

tom lawrence wrote can some one explain to me why people have such a bug up their butt about top-posting i find it much more convenient when reading through a thread... do you read books starting at the end too no and i dont read page 1 then page 1-2 then page 1-3 1-4 etc. when reading down through a thread its helpful to ignore all the crap that ive already read... sensible trimming fixes that as per my post . graham .

From : pooh bear

dori a schmetterling wrote yes. an enduring phenomenon ongoing situation... grin since the introduction of machinery industrial revolution. for example in britain there was massive restructuring in the seventies and now employment is still at among its highest levels and certainly among the highest in western europe perhaps partly because more partners in a family need to work to have sufficient income to enjoy the good life. you sem to have a strange view of things. thatcher did her bit to destroy british industry but uk unemployment is by no means among the highest in europe. graham .

From : pooh bear

huw wrote dtj wrote potential they have the potential to get their asses kicked if they keep supporting terrorists. cite like you kick the asses of those arabs i suppose http//.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4649066.stm hah ! you beat me to it ! the us military cant even cope with iraq. graham .

From : pooh bear

treeline12345@yahoo.com wrote which countries and religions say its bad to practice birth control certainly not china or india. try again. graham .

From : pooh bear

tbone wrote the problem here max is this is a german company. i am talking about the american companies that lay off 500 workers and then give the ceo a 10000000 salary increase and bonuses for raising the profit margin. thats america all over. next the ceo wil take early retirement and get another $10m. graham .

From : 223rem

tom lawrence wrote top-posted and un-trimmed mr. bude. can some one explain to me why people have such a bug up their butt about top-posting i find it much more convenient when reading through a thread... because youve never had to read through a complex thread and most of your posts are of the me too kind .

From : max dodge

budd i swaped my 72 dodge 318 to a transistor by doing this. took a module from a 73 318 van. not sure about the pin numbers though. also had to add a different resistor block. made it a different pu in a hurry. better low end torque and it cleaned out the carbon etc in about a week. bob az .

From : 223rem

so trains are a massively utilised transport form in america today yeah right! as i said travel isnt always based on best efficiency or lowest cost. you claimed a train wasnt the least costly or the most efficient and both were proven as assests of rail travel. yeah right. if you miss out most of the costs that i have included yes. if you happen to live and your destination is within walking distance of the station as well yes. otherwise only if you travel alone and in your dreams. in my example the car is only marginally more expensive than train if it carries only one person on the journey. what costs did you add that i did not none. your costs for car travel of 220 miles miles in the uk sounds odd to me..... are roughly 30 which seem low given the amount of fuel needed to travel that distance. however with your cost for parking you spend 60 vs. the train at 65. car pooling dewfinitely helps your example. im sure if i added three others to defray my costs i too could do the philly /dc run at about $15 total per person. however if you had 100 people to move cars would not be the efficient way to do it. once again you are putting personal cost above efficiency which is fine but it does not take away from the efficiency of the train. well you could say that most journies and methods of work could be modified to become more efficient. more home working for instance. it does not improve the maths for when you have to travel though. since your fuel is so much cheaper than ours i think the math works out even more favourably for the car where you are. sadly no it does not. my example was pretty clear. again you are arguing cost to the commuter rather than efficiency of mode of travel. trains are more efficient at moving large numbers of people than autos. if people were willing to spend a bit more and get a bit more service in return rail travel would become more popular. but again popularity is not a measure of efficiency. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max dodge wrote no. the carriages of a train are much heavier in relation to payload compared to a five seater family car and a fully occupied family car will be more economical per passenger mile. even with tax rebated fuel and a massive government subsidy on top it is cheaper for five people to travel by car than by train. carriage weight has nothing to do with efficiency. a train is more efficient due to the roadbed and lack of rolling resistance. also a factor is the number of passengers per unit. a car hold six at best while a train is unlimited to a large degree. for me to travel from philadelphia to washington d.c. i must pay for fuel which would be approximately $15 assuming traffic was good. parking in d.c. would cost me $20 for the day if i was lucky. travel time would be four hours or so costing roughly $100 in productive time depending on pay rate/salary. meanwhile a ticket for amtrak would cost $40-$55 for a two hour ride. during the ride i could do paperwork or relax. so trains are a massively utilised transport form in america today yeah right! even with our fuel costs in the uk today and with a massively subsidised railway network it would cost only four people 7.50 each to travel the 220 miles to london. it would cost 55 each by train. parking in london would cost 30 per day while it would cost 10 at the train station but i would need to travel a 80 mile round trip by car to reach the station and come home on top. train 55*4=220 plus two days parking at 10 = 20 is a total of 240 plus getting to and from the station. car 30 and 60 parking = 90 total. that is a 150 saving for four people by car. i do not cost the depreciation and other costs for the car because it is needed to get to the station anyhow. three passengers can relax and do the paperwork while in the car and there are no drunken louts or other distractions to contend with. note i did not include the cost of maintaining the vehicle nor its purchase price. train seems cheaper to me. yeah right. if you miss out most of the costs that i have included yes. if you happen to live and your destination is within walking distance of the station as well yes. otherwise only if you travel alone and in your dreams. in my example the car is only marginally more expensive than train if it carries only one person on the journey. there are other issues that come into play with intercity travel though such as congestion of the roads which may make the train more practical and timely but for most who travel outside london the train is almost irrellevant and a 19th century anachronism. that is why most non commuter train lines shut down many moons ago. their route is even less flexible than a service bus. perhaps if conserving fuel is an issue those who wish to conserve

From : max dodge

curious then that where cars do take a real pouding such as in india the locally made padmini is a fiat dericative and in many middle eastern and african countries that peugeots stand up well to the task. perhaps you think that is a real pounding but reality tells me that use in the states can be very harsh to a car that isnt designed here in the states. like it or not each region has its own design characteristics. stuff designed outside the states tends to be less than up to the task here in the states. i hate to say it but americans in general tend to be heavier than other humans. thus cars take more abuse. part of that is because we drive longer distances as we dont have the rail system nor the same lifestyle as europe or the middle east. another factor in those distances is the fact that we dont have restrictive borders as frequently as other regions do thus we drive farther more frequently. add to this that our fuel has traditionally been cheaper and you have yet another reason we drive a lot. i have yet to see a pick up truck from japan deal with the loads we dump on our pickups. this decade may see that opinion change in the half ton market. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max dodge wrote fiat was generally not able to take the pounding of distance driving renault was impossible to fix due to propriatary and french governmental restrictions on parts and peugot simply werent numerous enough to bother with. curious then that where cars do take a real pouding such as in india the locally made padmini is a fiat dericative and in many middle eastern and african countries that peugeots stand up well to the task. graham .

From : tbone

ok folks a friend and i were discussing the first generation chrysler electronic ignition. he says you can use one as a transistor ignition module by connecting a set of points to pin # 4. i disagree. theres a 12 pack of pepsi one riding on who is right. thanks folks! budd .

From : max dodge

are vw/audi and bmw inferior cars in your opinion too no but they also have far better records of reliability in the states. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max dodge wrote none of what you are saying makes much sense. evidence of this is your claim that youd buy fiat peugot and renault. great patronize your government by purchasing known inferior cars. are vw/audi and bmw inferior cars in your opinion too graham .

From : cp

in cold weather the tranny in a 97 2500 diesel is sluggish getting started. a dealer told the owner something like the problem is a valve that is draining down the fluid when turned off and it has to pump the fluid up. any idea what this is about how much would this cost to fix .

From : pooh bear

theguy wrote as i understand it one of the big cost advantages that the japanese have is simply that their plants are newer and more modern. they may also work harder. graham .

From : pooh bear

bill putney wrote max dodge wrote do a web search on biodiesel and decide for yourself. ill say this its definitely going to be profitable to someone... because of subsidies if so thats not real economics - thats politics - and someone is losing money/paying for it i.e. the taxpayer. subsidies are not required. graham .

From : tom lawrence

my buddy has the 2005 so perhaps he will be more fortunate. he already just had problems with a defective sensor that kept telling him he had water in his fuel but ford replaced it and changed the filters no charge. i will print out this article and give it to him. thanks again max. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving my mistake it was on autoweek http//www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/articleaid=/20051216/free/51216021&searchid=73234058064280 -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author tbone if you are interested there were a couple of reports regarding this iirc in the detroit free press. max i spent a bunch of time going through there and cant find it. do you have it at hand tia roy max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author not really its very relevant since ford has bought back 1000 units of the psd. problems range from turbo vanes breaking and being injested to engine management glitches. perhaps the most damaging in terms of per incident costs is the injectors that stick open and hydro-lock the engine. ford and navistar are said to be at odds over the issues and it has cost fomoco upwards of $500 million over their warranty costs in the previous year. hopefully your friend will not experience any of this. however given some of the stuff ive read he should absolutley keep records of maintenance and not attempt mods of any sort. i have a friend who just bought an 05 f250 as well so well see. i have a friend who also bought an 05 f350 and tends to beat on it a little. thanks for the info max ill pass it on to him. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : bill putney

crude oil is a fossil fuel and takes what millions of years to make natually -- -chris 05 ctd 99 durango on sun 29 jan 2006 140815 -0500 christopher thompson kf4drr@alltel.net wrote ok so you mean to tell me the crude oil admitting its a non renuable resource that we will eventually run out of show how it is non renewable. i assume that is what you meant. ************************* dave .

From : pooh bear

pooh bear wrote tom lawrence wrote top-posted and un-trimmed mr. bude. can some one explain to me why people have such a bug up their butt about top-posting i find it much more convenient when reading through a thread... do you read books starting at the end too theres a difference when ive been reading thru a book and am on chapter 10 i flip to chapter 10 to start reading again - i dont start all the way back at the beginning but the previous chapters are there to refer back to if needed. not that im for or against top posting but your example works against you. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : pooh bear

scott en aztln wrote on sun 29 jan 2006 092413 +0000 pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote comments4u wrote with job cuts announced on both sides of the atlantic its clear daimler-chrysler is serious about cutting the fat. even more it has announced plans for increased production at the currently hot chrysler unit without additional workers. that is truely cutting the fat. but observers wonder if daimler-chrysler has really identified all its fat. no. its about getting america off its lardy ass and competing at world standard productivity levels. you mean like they do over in europe which has both shorter work weeks and more vacation days every year than americans do http//www.careerjournal.com/myc/workabroad/20041123-sterling.html in many european countries the full-time workweek falls below 40 hours while the number of paid vacation days outnumbers those in the u.s. from 1970 to 2002 annual per capita hours fell for most industrialized countries dropping more than 20% in france. but per capita hours increased by 20% in the u.s. so why arent european car companies in trouble like gm and ford then theres no merit in working long weeks for the hell of it btw. most american have a false idea of reality here anyway. graham .

From : pooh bear

max dodge wrote fiat was generally not able to take the pounding of distance driving renault was impossible to fix due to propriatary and french governmental restrictions on parts and peugot simply werent numerous enough to bother with. curious then that where cars do take a real pouding such as in india the locally made padmini is a fiat dericative and in many middle eastern and african countries that peugeots stand up well to the task. graham .

From : max dodge

huw wrote pooh bear wrote huw wrote fuel use per passenger mile is higher by train you are barking mad ! graham no. the carriages of a train are much heavier in relation to payload compared to a five seater family car and a fully occupied family car will be more economical per passenger mile. youre barking mad. trains use far less energy notably because of the low rolling resistance of steel wheels on rails. a train carriage can carry about 100 ppl. a 2 ton car rarely carries more than 4. seat for seat the train carriage or car is significantly *lighter* - i.e. they dont weigh 50 tons ! graham .

From : max dodge

because of subsidies if so thats not real economics - thats politics - and someone is losing money/paying for it i.e. the taxpayer. have you done the websearch i suggested i doubt it since you havent come up with the facts yet. biodiesel is relatively easy and cheap to manufacture. there is no need for subsidy since half the raw material can be either gotten for free or the producer pays for you to remove it. there are several companies currently doing r&d on various methods all of whom are looking to do this as a capitalist venture with no subsidies. instead of barking the same old bark inform yourself. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max dodge wrote do a web search on biodiesel and decide for yourself. ill say this its definitely going to be profitable to someone... because of subsidies if so thats not real economics - thats politics - and someone is losing money/paying for it i.e. the taxpayer. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : pooh bear

max dodge wrote because of subsidies if so thats not real economics - thats politics - and someone is losing money/paying for it i.e. the taxpayer. have you done the websearch i suggested i doubt it since you havent come up with the facts yet. biodiesel is relatively easy and cheap to manufacture. there is no need for subsidy since half the raw material can be either gotten for free or the producer pays for you to remove it. there are several companies currently doing r&d on various methods all of whom are looking to do this as a capitalist venture with no subsidies. instead of barking the same old bark inform yourself. youre right - i was thinking of gasahol. i am familiar with biodiesel. i do question the volume of free material to convert much less ones that pay you to take it once it catches on. right now with it just ramping up there is a lot of free raw material to convert - restaurants etc. are glad to give away what they presently have to pay a disposal service to haul away. it just seems that when it is being produced at levels approaching a moderate fration of traditional diesel the market forces will treat it like any other commodity - the sources realizing that they are giving away something that actually has value will start charging what the market will bear for the presently free material - it will start with the disposal companies being paid good money for the material they collect and eventually paying the restaurants etc. for the unconverted material. but you are right - it will start having a beneficial influence on the traditional fuel markets. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : max dodge

pooh bear wrote huw wrote fuel use per passenger mile is higher by train you are barking mad ! graham no. the carriages of a train are much heavier in relation to payload compared to a five seater family car and a fully occupied family car will be more economical per passenger mile. even with tax rebated fuel and a massive government subsidy on top it is cheaper for five people to travel by car than by train. there are other issues that come into play with intercity travel though such as congestion of the roads which may make the train more practical and timely but for most who travel outside london the train is almost irrellevant and a 19th century anachronism. that is why most non commuter train lines shut down many moons ago. their route is even less flexible than a service bus. huw .

From : max dodge

inefficient management is usually the reason that a labour force is inefficient. debatable at best. while management is a factor its one of many that have an effect on the process. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max dodge wrote agreed but dc isnt just a german company. decisions made in stuttgart affect manufacturing plants here. thus no matter who makes the decisions it is a pleasant change to see that inefficient management is being cut just as inefficient labor normally is. inefficient management is usually the reason that a labour force is inefficient. huw .

From : pooh bear

bill putney wrote is that not the type of fuel that you have to dump more energy in to get a given amount out i.e. is a net loss a common myth. gasoline production is actually more energy ineffcient than ethanol. graham .

From : pooh bear

scott en aztln wrote on sun 29 jan 2006 092413 +0000 pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote no. its about getting america off its lardy ass and competing at world standard productivity levels. you mean like they do over in europe which has both shorter work weeks and more vacation days every year than americans do so youre saying that despite working longer hours american workers still arent up to the task hint - its *what you do* during those hours - not some macho belief about the value of the *number of hours* that counts. if you spend all your worktime scratching your ass you wont be very productive ! graham .

From : pooh bear

dtj wrote if you are including pieces of shit of lesser quality than american made cars such as the honda accord than of course the number made would be higher than honda. uk honda accords are made in swindon. not american at all. graham .

From : pooh bear

scott en aztln wrote on sun 29 jan 2006 092413 +0000 pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote comments4u wrote with job cuts announced on both sides of the atlantic its clear daimler-chrysler is serious about cutting the fat. even more it has announced plans for increased production at the currently hot chrysler unit without additional workers. that is truely cutting the fat. but observers wonder if daimler-chrysler has really identified all its fat. no. its about getting america off its lardy ass and competing at world standard productivity levels. you mean like they do over in europe which has both shorter work weeks and more vacation days every year than americans do i think nissans uk plant is actually more productive then even some of its japanese plants. work that one out. graham .

From : pooh bear

max dodge wrote none of what you are saying makes much sense. evidence of this is your claim that youd buy fiat peugot and renault. great patronize your government by purchasing known inferior cars. are vw/audi and bmw inferior cars in your opinion too graham .

From : max dodge

tom lawrence wrote top-posted and un-trimmed mr. bude. can some one explain to me why people have such a bug up their butt about top-posting i find it much more convenient when reading through a thread... do you read books starting at the end too graham .

From : dtj

its a sliding type the reason i dont take it to a shop and pay for it is because they want to charge me like $400+ and im affraid it will happan again... .

From : pooh bear

correction of top posting idiocy attempted... dont like it dont read it. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author on sun 29 jan 2006 174432 gmt max dodge max340@verizon.net wrote correction of top posting idiocy attempted... ... consumption. if you are that concerned sir take up the cause of rail transport with your congresssman. a good rail system will cut use of personal vehicles and lower the number of tractor trailers on the highways. this will save far more fuel than a dodge durango that weighs 600 pounds less. number of riders isnt a measure of efficiency. capacity per unit of fuel used is the efficency level. ill agree we are not using our rail efficiently that is my point. but it doesnt make cars more efficient than rail just because we drive cars more frequently. we drive cars more because they are more efficient. if they were not we would choose other methods of transportation. if there was an efficient for me method of transport to my work i would take it but there is not. there is virtually no efficient method of public transportation in the us. ************************* dave .

From : bill putney

theguy is on target maybe its your keyboard. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author on sun 29 jan 2006 104505 -0800 theguy theguy@notebook.com wrote i agree with the philosophy but in reality your comment is bs bill. it has not been an open market for a lot of the us industry. foreign industry has had several advantages and help from thier governments that ours have not. you cant have it both ways. either we have an open market and that includes foreign policy from the competing nations governments or we provide the same benefits to our industry that the others have. you can not equalize everything out when the rules are not equal. is your keyboard broke or your brain. ************************* dave .

From : huw

kfrei43@removethis.hotmail.com writes question does a cracked cyl. head have any core value other than as scrap iron put it on ebay. advertise it as a 1997 dodge ram cracked cylinder head/small boat anchor. be sure to tell the whole story and explain how you are trying to recoup some of the repair bill. you never know what people will bid on. even if it doesnt get any bids it wont cost you anything. jay lenos occasional segment stuff we found on ebay is living proof that some people will bid on anything and a fool & his money are soon parted. jeeze just imagine what that thing would cost to ship. the mailman would be wearing a truss. .

From : max dodge

question does a cracked cyl. head have any core value other than as scrap iron put it on ebay. advertise it as a 1997 dodge ram cracked cylinder head/small boat anchor. be sure to tell the whole story and explain how you are trying to recoup some of the repair bill. you never know what people will bid on. even if it doesnt get any bids it wont cost you anything. -- ken .

From : max dodge

because of subsidies if so thats not real economics - thats politics - and someone is losing money/paying for it i.e. the taxpayer. have you done the websearch i suggested i doubt it since you havent come up with the facts yet. biodiesel is relatively easy and cheap to manufacture. there is no need for subsidy since half the raw material can be either gotten for free or the producer pays for you to remove it. there are several companies currently doing r&d on various methods all of whom are looking to do this as a capitalist venture with no subsidies. instead of barking the same old bark inform yourself. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max dodge wrote do a web search on biodiesel and decide for yourself. ill say this its definitely going to be profitable to someone... because of subsidies if so thats not real economics - thats politics - and someone is losing money/paying for it i.e. the taxpayer. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : alan lehun

so trains are a massively utilised transport form in america today yeah right! as i said travel isnt always based on best efficiency or lowest cost. you claimed a train wasnt the least costly or the most efficient and both were proven as assests of rail travel. yeah right. if you miss out most of the costs that i have included yes. if you happen to live and your destination is within walking distance of the station as well yes. otherwise only if you travel alone and in your dreams. in my example the car is only marginally more expensive than train if it carries only one person on the journey. what costs did you add that i did not none. your costs for car travel of 220 miles miles in the uk sounds odd to me..... are roughly 30 which seem low given the amount of fuel needed to travel that distance. however with your cost for parking you spend 60 vs. the train at 65. car pooling dewfinitely helps your example. im sure if i added three others to defray my costs i too could do the philly /dc run at about $15 total per person. however if you had 100 people to move cars would not be the efficient way to do it. once again you are putting personal cost above efficiency which is fine but it does not take away from the efficiency of the train. well you could say that most journies and methods of work could be modified to become more efficient. more home working for instance. it does not improve the maths for when you have to travel though. since your fuel is so much cheaper than ours i think the math works out even more favourably for the car where you are. sadly no it does not. my example was pretty clear. again you are arguing cost to the commuter rather than efficiency of mode of travel. trains are more efficient at moving large numbers of people than autos. if people were willing to spend a bit more and get a bit more service in return rail travel would become more popular. but again popularity is not a measure of efficiency. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max dodge wrote no. the carriages of a train are much heavier in relation to payload compared to a five seater family car and a fully occupied family car will be more economical per passenger mile. even with tax rebated fuel and a massive government subsidy on top it is cheaper for five people to travel by car than by train. carriage weight has nothing to do with efficiency. a train is more efficient due to the roadbed and lack of rolling resistance. also a factor is the number of passengers per unit. a car hold six at best while a train is unlimited to a large degree. for me to travel from philadelphia to washington d.c. i must pay for fuel which would be approximately $15 assuming traffic was good. parking in d.c. would cost me $20 for the day if i was lucky. travel time would be four hours or so costing roughly $100 in productive time depending on pay rate/salary. meanwhile a ticket for amtrak would cost $40-$55 for a two hour ride. during the ride i could do paperwork or relax. so trains are a massively utilised transport form in america today yeah right! even with our fuel costs in the uk today and with a massively subsidised railway network it would cost only four people 7.50 each to travel the 220 miles to london. it would cost 55 each by train. parking in london would cost 30 per day while it would cost 10 at the train station but i would need to travel a 80 mile round trip by car to reach the station and come home on top. train 55*4=220 plus two days parking at 10 = 20 is a total of 240 plus getting to and from the station. car 30 and 60 parking = 90 total. that is a 150 saving for four people by car. i do not cost the depreciation and other costs for the car because it is needed to get to the station anyhow. three passengers can relax and do the paperwork while in the car and there are no drunken louts or other distractions to contend with. note i did not include the cost of maintaining the vehicle nor its purchase price. train seems cheaper to me. yeah right. if you miss out most of the costs that i have included yes. if you happen to live and your destination is within walking distance of the station as well yes. otherwise only if you travel alone and in your dreams. in my example the car is only marginally more expensive than train if it carries only one person on the journey. there are other issues that come into play with intercity travel though such as congestion of the roads which may make the train more practical and timely but for most who travel outside london the train is almost irrellevant and a 19th century anachronism. that is why most non commuter train lines shut down many moons ago. their route is even less flexible than a service bus. perhaps if conserving fuel is an issue those who wish to conserve

From : huw

roy wrote in my reply to budd i said i was sick of hearing cut the employees wages as part the cure all end all. what i have noticed is nobody has responded to my question. i wonder why..... roy i assume you meant this questions who the hell here can afford a pay cut in all honsety i think theres no serious reply because everyone understands that the market does not have any emotions. it does not care that i or you personally feel like we cant afford a pay cut. if it can find the labor cheaper it will go there - you will take a pay cut one way or the other. iow no one answered because they didnt want to state the obvious. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : bill putney

huw wrote that is not the same as entering the war. at the same time henry ford was investing and developing business in the third reich but i do not claim that it or he entered the war on hitlers side although some would say so. dont forget joe kennedy the then u.s. ambassador to britain who was pro-hitler and working against churchill to keep the u.s. uninvolved in aiding britain. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : matthew russotto

scott en aztln wrote go to your bookshelf and open up any book. is it written from top to bottom or bottom to top now take down another book - same thing take down a few more - my god are they all like that i dont care either way but that is certainly a poor argument. it would be a great argument if we were talking about reading books - but were not. the only thing a group has in common with books is that they both contain words and ideas. beyond that the similarity stops. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : max dodge

max dodge max340@verizon.net wrote whats the efficiency of moving 100 tons of e.g. perishable goods by rail in such a manner that they are no longer usable by the time they make it to their destination none. however if its loaded on a an express train that crosses the nation at considerably higher speeds than are legal on the highway it will encounter little in the way of traffic jams or weather that stops travel. and whens the last time youd heard of an express freight train there aint no such animal -- and if it were its efficiency would not be nearly as good as a regular freight train. -- theres no such thing as a free lunch but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. .

From : pooh bear

http//www.i-am-bored.com/boredlink.cfmlinkid=15438 -- poorub 05 ultra classic .

From : pooh bear

do the words bite me have any meaning to you - sorry tbone -- gotta take a shot here grn -- and warn you last time a guy told me that i replied where would you prefer rach like i said before i am not saying youre wrong i just dont personally see it but since you do this type of work and i never have... lucifer just put on his ear muffs.... .

From : pooh bear

max dodge wrote first off lend lease was signed march 11 1941. that is not going to war. no one claimed it was. but it certainly is entering a theatre of war. a commercial agreement isnt going to war. graham .

From : rachel easson

max dodge wrote as for the roads - well until youve driven through a few indian pot-holes you havent experienced how bad roads can really be. you havent seen pennsylvania highways have you and you havent seen even the roads in bombay - never mind their highways outside of cities. graham .

From : max dodge

i think weve been over this but for your lack of observational skills ill put it here so you see it. we were supplying the uk with war materials well before pearl harbor thats simply a commercial transaction. not when done between governments. except for supplying the munitions to get the job done helping with the radar to spot incoming planes no. at that time british radar used no us parts. in fact it was britain that gave the design of the critical resonant cavity magnetron to the usa ! see tizard mission. along with the jet engine too later i might add. us radars were almost non-existent in 1941. certainly no airborne ones and i dont think there were any operational naval ones either. as much as you would like to think we hadnt the technology you would be wrong. http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/radar be sure to click on the link for dr. dumont. a commercial situation too. in any event no significant numbers of us planes arrived in the uk until well after pearl harbor. hardly a commercial situation given the government was involved on both ends. youre suggesting that we needed us leadership. stfu ! britain had already survived being in the front line for several years before you guys could even drag your lardy asses over here. at what point was monty prepared to invade the continent clearly you dont see the whole picture. if churchill was content to allow ike to lead perhaps you should realize he had a reason to do so. i think you need to read up on some honest history. ive done a bit of that clearly more than you have. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max dodge wrote no you didnt ! you waited til japan bombed pearl harbor over 2 years after the start of ww2. us forces didnt arrive *in the uk* until 1942. i think weve been over this but for your lack of observational skills ill put it here so you see it. we were supplying the uk with war materials well before pearl harbor thats simply a commercial transaction. along with naval escorts for the ships carrying that material. do some research. this saved england from invasion england was saved from invasion by the battle of britain in which the us played not one single jot. except for supplying the munitions to get the job done helping with the radar to spot incoming planes no. at that time british radar used no us parts. in fact it was britain that gav

From : matthew russotto

max dodge wrote actually ive heard that plenty of us servicemen are totally pissed of with being in a country that doesnt even want them there - never mind the likelihood of being killed for their trouble. which proves my point that it depends on who is doing the reporting now doesnt it you prefer fox do you theres little difference in objective reporting *outside* the us. fine - stick with your gung-ho attitude and see where it gets you. its a damn bloody mess. graham .

From : pooh bear

max dodge wrote my last uk vauxhall cavalier lasted 180000 miles and 16 yrs without any major parts replacement at all. original clutch afaik too. youre daft if you think maintenance is expensive because of euro design too. and you are daft if you think the parts for these cars simply skip over the ocean free of charge. what ocean you dont seem to have a point. i said it needed very few replacement parts. those parts that were replaced didnt have to come over any oceans. all the important stuff kept working. can you not cope with the idea that a european car can run for 16 yrs/180000 mls and not even need many bits replaced graham .

From : pooh bear

max dodge wrote actually neither. japan declared war on the usa followed by germany. the usa had no choice. it was dragged into the war by the axis powers. which consigns to oblivion the efforts of one winston churchill. perhaps you should do more reading and less blurting. im stating facts. you have nothing other than speculation. i *know* that roosevelt was sympathetic but his hands were tied by us opinion. graham .

From : rachel easson

max dodge wrote no you didnt ! you waited til japan bombed pearl harbor over 2 years after the start of ww2. us forces didnt arrive *in the uk* until 1942. i think weve been over this but for your lack of observational skills ill put it here so you see it. we were supplying the uk with war materials well before pearl harbor thats simply a commercial transaction. along with naval escorts for the ships carrying that material. do some research. this saved england from invasion england was saved from invasion by the battle of britain in which the us played not one single jot. except for supplying the munitions to get the job done helping with the radar to spot incoming planes no. at that time british radar used no us parts. in fact it was britain that gave the design of the critical resonant cavity magnetron to the usa ! see tizard mission. along with the jet engine too later i might add. us radars were almost non-existent in 1941. certainly no airborne ones and i dont think there were any operational naval ones either. and then helping to bolster sagging numbers of airplanes. yeah we did nothing in that effort. a commercial situation too. in any event no significant numbers of us planes arrived in the uk until well after pearl harbor. and lead to the liberation of france. france was liberated by *allied* forces. not just the us. aside from the obvious brits and yanks there were canadians free french poles australians new zealanders indians czechs and many others. yeah but without the u.s. leadership and vast numbers not to mention wartime production and a host of other things no one would have set foot on the continent. youre suggesting that we needed us leadership. stfu ! britain had already survived being in the front line for several years before you guys could even drag your lardy asses over here. yet they seem to know better than we how our military works. youre a lying sack of shit. and you sir are a misguided pompous ass. i think you need to read up on some honest history. graham .

From : guenter scholz

huw wrote thom wrote actually the reason the us is so tough on cars is the fact that most people do not take care of their cars. they expect them to work all the time no matter how deficient their maintenance upkeep. and there were we readers of these forums being misled into thinking us cars had their oils changed every 3000 to 5000 miles while we europeans serviced our cars every 10000 to 15000 miles. lol theres a difference between modern synthetic oils and the dino-oil so popular in the us. graham not in the least required for older motors rach .

From : max dodge

half ton eh i dont think there are many pick-ups sold in europe with a payload of less than a ton but there you go. most of your pick-ups seem to carry not a lot more than fishing tackle. huw grunt grunt guffaw! now my nose is cleared bull shit! 1/4-1/2 ton pickups in town regularly move people carry construction supplies are used for small businesses and often have better mileage than cars. 3/4-1 ton frequently tow boats trailers carrying 4x4s skidoos boats. in the rural areas only poor locals do not have at least one truck regardless of age -- if we didnt have them we would lose our suspension in a hurry and would pay a fortune to have wood delivered not to mention loading the box with propane tanks maybe oxygen and acetelyne tanks gas containers for gasoline chain saw oil diesel and groceries since a trip to town can be expensive so its not done frequently not to mention dog food -- 80 kg a month for most large dogs of which two is a good idea for security. need i mention that most people who drive trucks are very handy they can usually build their own decks fences sheds patch their roofs fix most things have automobile basic skills if not outright specialists in at least one of framing foundations general construction electricity plumbing installing septic systems wells sump pumps holding tanks systerns underground lines to the outbuildings fixing heavy machinery logging milling farming automotive welding hydraulics for homemade wood splitters etc. small motor repairs ... the list goes on. how could we do all this without a pickup most of us lead very busy lives thread about work hours as compared to many countries whether urban or rural and welcome is the day when the bed only contains fishing tackle tent camping supplies and clothing and maybe a shot gun or two! rach .

From : pooh bear

pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote max dodge wrote by roosevelt or churchill both actually neither. japan declared war on the usa followed by germany. you do realize that some might say with some justification considering the oil politics/embargos the us was forcing onto japan. the usa had no choice. it was dragged into the war by the axis powers. kind of like dragging an elephant into bed with you.... surely you must have read some accounts outlining how the white house was itching to get into the war at all cost almost. cheers .

From : max dodge

guenter scholz wrote reading below i wonder if anyone went to school. to wit max dodge wrote this saved england from invasion whatever makes you think anyone was interested in invading in the first place.... to be fair hitler did have a notional operation sea lion but it was pretty half-assed and based on invading england using converted dutch barges. it would have been shelled straight out of the water by the royal navy so in order to make it credible the luftwaffe would have needed air superiority possible the first occasion such a concept ever came into play to keep the rn at bay. the subsequent battle of britain was the luftwaffes attempt to gain said air superiority and they lost. graham .

From : max dodge

actually ive heard that plenty of us servicemen are totally pissed of with being in a country that doesnt even want them there - never mind the likelihood of being killed for their trouble. which proves my point that it depends on who is doing the reporting now doesnt it -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max dodge wrote yes you just do that and ask them after they have been back again and again and seen their friends killed and maimed with no end in sight. to a man they are proud of their work proud of their accomplishments and proud to be in a position to make a difference. actually ive heard that plenty of us servicemen are totally pissed of with being in a country that doesnt even want them there - never mind the likelihood of being killed for their trouble. graham .

From : max dodge

max dodge wrote and yet we managed to prevent all of europe from speaking german lol! yet simply looking at the post would have told you that i didnt say that. no schooling needed. actually truth be told it was the russians .... the us essentially mopped up at the end when it was all over anyway... geesh talk about beating the rag tag bunch that was left over after the russians got through with them. yeah we had nothing to do with supplying the russians nor with that second front that allowed the russians to advance. well i wont get into why i think the us got into the war.... lol or the british who its been pointed out are also there. whatever makes you think anyone was interested in invading in the first place.... other than the plans that hitler had laid out not a damn thing! back to your education! a terror campaign does not an invasion make. but it sure makes one hell of a battle of attrition. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author reading below i wonder if anyone went to school. to wit pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote max dodge wrote and yet we managed to prevent all of europe from speaking german lol! actually truth be told it was the russians .... the us essentially mopped up at the end when it was all over anyway... geesh talk about beating the rag tag bunch that was left over after the russians got through with them. excellent point. im always fascinated by the way people from outside the u.s. criticize our actions. frankly half of us disagree with any given military action. fortunately when most of the u.s. was opposed to going to war in 1940 we decided to enter the european theatre regardless. well i wont get into why i think the us got into the war.... no you didnt ! you waited til japan bombed pearl harbor over 2 years after the start of ww2. us forces didnt arrive *in the uk* until 1942. this saved england from invasion whatever makes you think anyone was interested in invading in the first place.... i would have thought that dunkirk put an end to that assumption. england was saved from invasion by the battle of britain in which the us played not one single jot. a terror campaign does not an invasion make. cheers .

From : max dodge

actually neither. japan declared war on the usa followed by germany. the usa had no choice. it was dragged into the war by the axis powers. which consigns to oblivion the efforts of one winston churchill. perhaps you should do more reading and less blurting. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max dodge wrote by roosevelt or churchill both actually neither. japan declared war on the usa followed by germany. the usa had no choice. it was dragged into the war by the axis powers. graham .

From : max dodge

first off lend lease was signed march 11 1941. that is not going to war. no one claimed it was. but it certainly is entering a theatre of war. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max dodge wrote you actually only entered the war when it became obvious that the usa would have to deal with a power greater than itself if britain fell. the penny didnt drop in the pacific until most of the fleet had been sunk at pearl harbour. more rubbish than one bucket can hold. first off lend lease was signed march 11 1941. that is not going to war. graham .

From : Annonymous

top-posted and un-trimmed mr. bude. can some one explain to me why people have such a bug up their butt about top-posting i find it much more convenient when reading through a thread... .

From : max dodge

max dodge wrote no. the carriages of a train are much heavier in relation to payload compared to a five seater family car and a fully occupied family car will be more economical per passenger mile. even with tax rebated fuel and a massive government subsidy on top it is cheaper for five people to travel by car than by train. carriage weight has nothing to do with efficiency. a train is more efficient due to the roadbed and lack of rolling resistance. also a factor is the number of passengers per unit. a car hold six at best while a train is unlimited to a large degree. for me to travel from philadelphia to washington d.c. i must pay for fuel which would be approximately $15 assuming traffic was good. parking in d.c. would cost me $20 for the day if i was lucky. travel time would be four hours or so costing roughly $100 in productive time depending on pay rate/salary. meanwhile a ticket for amtrak would cost $40-$55 for a two hour ride. during the ride i could do paperwork or relax. so trains are a massively utilised transport form in america today yeah right! even with our fuel costs in the uk today and with a massively subsidised railway network it would cost only four people 7.50 each to travel the 220 miles to london. it would cost 55 each by train. parking in london would cost 30 per day while it would cost 10 at the train station but i would need to travel a 80 mile round trip by car to reach the station and come home on top. train 55*4=220 plus two days parking at 10 = 20 is a total of 240 plus getting to and from the station. car 30 and 60 parking = 90 total. that is a 150 saving for four people by car. i do not cost the depreciation and other costs for the car because it is needed to get to the station anyhow. three passengers can relax and do the paperwork while in the car and there are no drunken louts or other distractions to contend with. note i did not include the cost of maintaining the vehicle nor its purchase price. train seems cheaper to me. yeah right. if you miss out most of the costs that i have included yes. if you happen to live and your destination is within walking distance of the station as well yes. otherwise only if you travel alone and in your dreams. in my example the car is only marginally more expensive than train if it carries only one person on the journey. there are other issues that come into play with intercity travel though such as congestion of the roads which may make the train more practical and timely but for most who travel outside london the train is almost irrellevant and a 19th century anachronism. that is why most non commuter train lines shut down many moons ago. their route is even less flexible than a service bus. perhaps if conserving fuel is an issue those who wish to conserve must become more flexible rather than the method of transit. well you could say that most journies and methods of work could be modified to become more efficient. more home working for instance. it does not improve the maths for when you have to travel though. since your fuel is so much cheaper than ours i think the math works out even more favourably for the car where you are. huw .

From : huw

all factors have to be managed. the job of a manager is to manage and labour efficiency needs to be managed. costs have to be managed. the whole company needs to be managed. if it is not managed efficiently to overcome problems and to innovate and sell at a profit then it will succumb. again debatable at best. managing all factors means making the best of a situation. at times things do not happen in the most efficient way through no fault of the management. utopia does not exist. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max dodge wrote inefficient management is usually the reason that a labour force is inefficient. debatable at best. while management is a factor its one of many that have an effect on the process. all factors have to be managed. the job of a manager is to manage and labour efficiency needs to be managed. costs have to be managed. the whole company needs to be managed. if it is not managed efficiently to overcome problems and to innovate and sell at a profit then it will succumb. huw .

From : max dodge

how far back in history do you want to go what happened some thirty years or more ago is hardly relevant to now or even the relevant past. it is certainly not relevant to what is happening to delphi gm and ford today. unless you think the us govt will buy gm and it is a good idea. the british socialist govt just let privately owned mg/rover go bust and that too was a nationalised industry at some point in the past. as indeed was ford owned land rover and jaguar. false. in fact labor unions which are a 1920-30 phenomenom are a reason for the high cost of cars today. thus 60 and 70 years ago events took place that affect how things work today. if you are ignorant enough to think that something that happened on a large scale 30 years ago is irrelevant today you have lost the lesson of history. in fact this is one case where management was inefficient but the labor was efficient as we now have a glut of suvs and poor planning on managements part. i think you will find that mercedes cars with moderate engines are much more efficient and economical today than they were ten to twenty years ago depite gaining weight. yes they could be even more economical but that is mainly in the hands of the consumer who can downsize vehicle and engines and even use diesel for significantly increased efficiency. you are barely catching up. this isnt about mercedes becoming more efficient over time. the point was that heavier cars use more fuel. people earn what they are worth on the whole. not always of course. if a high flier with aptitude spends more than a few days cleaning then management needs improving. i see you think all things work perfectly. if such a person were promoted into an already functioning management exactly what position would they take that would make the management more efficient perhaps the reason such a person is not promoted is that the management is already working well and no room to promote exists. need i remind you that efficient management takes stock of all possibilities such as who gets sacked in order to promote the kid at the coffee machine -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max dodge wrote well that is a symptom of a socialist phase that europe went through. it is a historical anachronism which has not been true for many years. my point remains and is substanciated by your statement. your examples are poor representation of free market philosophy. how far back in history do you want to go what happened some thirty years or more ago is hardly relevant to now or even the relevant past. it is certainly not relevant to what is happening to delphi gm and ford today. unless you think the us govt will buy gm and it is a good idea. the british socialist govt just let privately owned mg/rover go bust and that too was a nationalised industry at some point in the past. as indeed was ford owned land rover and jaguar. most cars are built heavier due to the equipment fitted and improved safety standards. the mercedes brand has always made heavier cars than bmw for instance but it is all relitive. their small cars are lighter than their big cars while a variety of engines are available for each model. if lightness is your thing they produce the smart car which is as small and light as anyone could wish. well once again youve missed the point of the original post. this was one of efficiency and the effect on oil consumption. i think you will find that mercedes cars with moderate engines are much more efficient and economical today than they were ten to twenty years ago depite gaining weight. yes they could be even more economical but that is mainly in the hands of the consumer who can downsize vehicle and engines and even use diesel for significantly increased efficiency. the welfare of the nation is tied absolutely to the profitability success and expansion of its companies. not of a particular company but of all the companies that employ the population that makes a nation. not entirely true. there are many other factors including employment rate related to how much is imported instead of manufactured here inflation cost of living versus income and management of the companies. one of the factors that makes a company more succesful and able to expand is to raise its market share. cuting imports is one thing that would allow for that. thus eliminating that possibility as you suggest means one advantage is stripped from the manufacturer. we can debate the merits ad infinitum but to regard it as wholly a negative action forgets the overall picture. in dcs case such a move might be positive as mercedes isnt that big a market share while chrysler is thus chrysler would profit from such a move while mercedes would not be substancially harmed. result dc makes more money. the problem is obviousl

From : max dodge

no. the carriages of a train are much heavier in relation to payload compared to a five seater family car and a fully occupied family car will be more economical per passenger mile. even with tax rebated fuel and a massive government subsidy on top it is cheaper for five people to travel by car than by train. carriage weight has nothing to do with efficiency. a train is more efficient due to the roadbed and lack of rolling resistance. also a factor is the number of passengers per unit. a car hold six at best while a train is unlimited to a large degree. for me to travel from philadelphia to washington d.c. i must pay for fuel which would be approximately $15 assuming traffic was good. parking in d.c. would cost me $20 for the day if i was lucky. travel time would be four hours or so costing roughly $100 in productive time depending on pay rate/salary. meanwhile a ticket for amtrak would cost $40-$55 for a two hour ride. during the ride i could do paperwork or relax. note i did not include the cost of maintaining the vehicle nor its purchase price. train seems cheaper to me. there are other issues that come into play with intercity travel though such as congestion of the roads which may make the train more practical and timely but for most who travel outside london the train is almost irrellevant and a 19th century anachronism. that is why most non commuter train lines shut down many moons ago. their route is even less flexible than a service bus. perhaps if conserving fuel is an issue those who wish to conserve must become more flexible rather than the method of transit. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author pooh bear wrote huw wrote fuel use per passenger mile is higher by train you are barking mad ! graham no. the carriages of a train are much heavier in relation to payload compared to a five seater family car and a fully occupied family car will be more economical per passenger mile. even with tax rebated fuel and a massive government subsidy on top it is cheaper for five people to travel by car than by train. there are other issues that come into play with intercity travel though such as congestion of the roads which may make the train more practical and timely but for most who travel outside london the train is almost irrellevant and a 19th century anachronism. that is why most non commuter train lines shut down many moons ago. their route is even less flexible than a service bus. huw .

From : theguy

max dodge wrote well that is a symptom of a socialist phase that europe went through. it is a historical anachronism which has not been true for many years. my point remains and is substanciated by your statement. your examples are poor representation of free market philosophy. how far back in history do you want to go what happened some thirty years or more ago is hardly relevant to now or even the relevant past. it is certainly not relevant to what is happening to delphi gm and ford today. unless you think the us govt will buy gm and it is a good idea. the british socialist govt just let privately owned mg/rover go bust and that too was a nationalised industry at some point in the past. as indeed was ford owned land rover and jaguar. most cars are built heavier due to the equipment fitted and improved safety standards. the mercedes brand has always made heavier cars than bmw for instance but it is all relitive. their small cars are lighter than their big cars while a variety of engines are available for each model. if lightness is your thing they produce the smart car which is as small and light as anyone could wish. well once again youve missed the point of the original post. this was one of efficiency and the effect on oil consumption. i think you will find that mercedes cars with moderate engines are much more efficient and economical today than they were ten to twenty years ago depite gaining weight. yes they could be even more economical but that is mainly in the hands of the consumer who can downsize vehicle and engines and even use diesel for significantly increased efficiency. the welfare of the nation is tied absolutely to the profitability success and expansion of its companies. not of a particular company but of all the companies that employ the population that makes a nation. not entirely true. there are many other factors including employment rate related to how much is imported instead of manufactured here inflation cost of living versus income and management of the companies. one of the factors that makes a company more succesful and able to expand is to raise its market share. cuting imports is one thing that would allow for that. thus eliminating that possibility as you suggest means one advantage is stripped from the manufacturer. we can debate the merits ad infinitum but to regard it as wholly a negative action forgets the overall picture. in dcs case such a move might be positive as mercedes isnt that big a market share while chrysler is thus chrysler would profit from such a move while mercedes would not be substancially harmed. result dc makes more money. the problem is obviously on your end where you think that such jobs would render someone unable to see through your inept reply. then it is an indictment of your promotion system that you may have or have not got higher up the ladder i believe. or it may be an indictment of the effort you put into your job. any way it does not look good. false. it reeks of your inability to understand that such jobs may be held by people of intellegence who have to start somewhere on the ladder of success. where better than the bottom to understand completely what makes a business tick of course if you prefer the peter principle that would explain your attitude and lack of respect for those working beneath you. people earn what they are worth on the whole. not always of course. if a high flier with aptitude spends more than a few days cleaning then management needs improving. huw .

From : bill putney

well that is a symptom of a socialist phase that europe went through. it is a historical anachronism which has not been true for many years. my point remains and is substanciated by your statement. your examples are poor representation of free market philosophy. most cars are built heavier due to the equipment fitted and improved safety standards. the mercedes brand has always made heavier cars than bmw for instance but it is all relitive. their small cars are lighter than their big cars while a variety of engines are available for each model. if lightness is your thing they produce the smart car which is as small and light as anyone could wish. well once again youve missed the point of the original post. this was one of efficiency and the effect on oil consumption. the welfare of the nation is tied absolutely to the profitability success and expansion of its companies. not of a particular company but of all the companies that employ the population that makes a nation. not entirely true. there are many other factors including employment rate related to how much is imported instead of manufactured here inflation cost of living versus income and management of the companies. one of the factors that makes a company more succesful and able to expand is to raise its market share. cuting imports is one thing that would allow for that. thus eliminating that possibility as you suggest means one advantage is stripped from the manufacturer. we can debate the merits ad infinitum but to regard it as wholly a negative action forgets the overall picture. in dcs case such a move might be positive as mercedes isnt that big a market share while chrysler is thus chrysler would profit from such a move while mercedes would not be substancially harmed. result dc makes more money. the problem is obviously on your end where you think that such jobs would render someone unable to see through your inept reply. then it is an indictment of your promotion system that you may have or have not got higher up the ladder i believe. or it may be an indictment of the effort you put into your job. any way it does not look good. false. it reeks of your inability to understand that such jobs may be held by people of intellegence who have to start somewhere on the ladder of success. where better than the bottom to understand completely what makes a business tick of course if you prefer the peter principle that would explain your attitude and lack of respect for those working beneath you. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max dodge wrote none of those are british and none are actually inferior. gm has just had to pay a huge sum to fiat to get out of a contract it could not afford. have you any experience of those cars millions of satisfied customers run them and i have just bought my first fiat recently to go with my year old range rover and eight year old land cruiser. i am very satisfied with all of them. fiat was owned by the italian governement fiat is owned by the agnelli family and it is almost bigger than the italian state. it owns many mutinational brands like casenewholland cnh which have a big us presence. likewise renault by the french. the french government have no more than a 16% shareholding in renault while renault has a substantial holding in nissan. using either as an example of free market business is moot. i do have experience with these cars in the states. fiat was generally not able to take the pounding of distance driving renault was impossible to fix due to propriatary and french governmental restrictions on parts and peugot simply werent numerous enough to bother with. very few us cars can cut it in europe either. only chrysler/jeep really have any presence here. others have tried and failed due to poor quality and dynamics. chrysler is controlled by german daimler anyhow. oh yes and bmw x5 and mercedes m are american built and sell in considerable numbers here but they are hardly representative of the rest of the crap produced. in any case the build quality of my mclass was appaling and worse than any european car i have had since a ford fiesta of 1977. actually my particular m was assembled in austria and was better built than most of the petrol american built ones. apparently the new models are much improved in all respects. fiat is a family owned business and neither of the others are government owned so i am not sure what you are on about. false. both fiat and renault were owned at some point by the governemnts of their respective origin. well that is a symptom of a socialist phase that europe went through. it is a historical anachronism which has not been true for many years. fiat has recently been in financial trouble but nothing like the problems at ford and gm. in fact gm had a

From : huw

on sun 29 jan 2006 151357 -0600 dtj none@nowhere.com wrote on sun 29 jan 2006 104505 -0800 theguy theguy@notebook.com wrote i agree with the philosophy but in reality your comment is bs bill. it has not been an open market for a lot of the us industry. foreign industry has had several advantages and help from thier governments that ours have not. you cant have it both ways. either we have an open market and that includes foreign policy from the competing nations governments or we provide the same benefits to our industry that the others have. you can not equalize everything out when the rules are not equal. is your keyboard broke or your brain. ************************* dave perfectly stupid answer dave to go along with a perfectly stupid thread. at any rate what the fuck are you talking about over. .

From : huw

max dodge wrote do a web search on biodiesel and decide for yourself. ill say this its definitely going to be profitable to someone... because of subsidies if so thats not real economics - thats politics - and someone is losing money/paying for it i.e. the taxpayer. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : max dodge

max dodge wrote inefficient management is usually the reason that a labour force is inefficient. debatable at best. while management is a factor its one of many that have an effect on the process. all factors have to be managed. the job of a manager is to manage and labour efficiency needs to be managed. costs have to be managed. the whole company needs to be managed. if it is not managed efficiently to overcome problems and to innovate and sell at a profit then it will succumb. huw .

From : bill putney

huw wrote fuel use per passenger mile is higher by train you are barking mad ! graham .

From : huw

max dodge wrote agreed but dc isnt just a german company. decisions made in stuttgart affect manufacturing plants here. thus no matter who makes the decisions it is a pleasant change to see that inefficient management is being cut just as inefficient labor normally is. inefficient management is usually the reason that a labour force is inefficient. huw .

From : dori a schmetterling

.....and e.g. netherlands. ok small but still. of course we are talking per capita. das -- for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- ... japan. ... .

From : max dodge

hi there i have a dodge 1500 4 by 4 truck with a 4.7 magnum. i went for a short trip today and when we stopped i smelled an oil smell. i opened the hood and there was oil all over the drivers side. i got out the trouble light when i got home and put it in my shop. the heads look fine as do the valve cover gaskets. i believe this truck could have an oil cooler as it does have the trailer towing package. could it be an oil sending unit please help me. i mean there is oil all over and down the drivers side of the truck. nothing on the passenger sids. yes the oil filler cap is in. any suggestions also leaks oil down onto the ground-again- on the drivers side only please e-mail badbrad631@yahoo.ca please help as i need my truck!!! .

From : max dodge

it is interesting that in my field pharmaceutical process machinery that there are some very nicely-designed italian machines but i have heard some negative comments about the quality. also in one case the technology is rather peculiar for the purpose and they dont sell many even in italy. on the other hand certain lock and automatic gates mechanisms are dominated by italian companies and good they are too. i am thinking of cisa and faac or whatever its called. das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- ... italian engineering has always been absolutely top notch although their electrics have not always been even adequate. this has changed markedly over the last fifteen years. i own several pieces of sophisticated electronically controlled industrial units built in italy from the early 90s and they are rust resistant and i have never had a single electronic problem from their engine management full electronic transmission management or chassis management systems alone or their comunication with each other. admittedly mid 80s models with far less sophistication had a reputation for wiring loom fires but time moves on. ... .

From : dtj

dtj wrote on sun 29 jan 2006 185409 -0000 huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote the most densly populated nations tend to be the most prosperous and china cite every country which is more densely populated than the us has a far lower standard of living. japan. has the potential of being more prosperous than the usa. i think you will potential they have the potential to get their asses kicked if they keep supporting terrorists. cite like you kick the asses of those arabs i suppose http//.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4649066.stm huw .

From : dori a schmetterling

my mistake it was on autoweek guess thats why i couldnt find it.g thanks roy http//www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/articleaid=/20051216/free/51216021&searchid=73234058064280 -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author tbone if you are interested there were a couple of reports regarding this iirc in the detroit free press. max i spent a bunch of time going through there and cant find it. do you have it at hand tia roy max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author not really its very relevant since ford has bought back 1000 units of the psd. problems range from turbo vanes breaking and being injested to engine management glitches. perhaps the most damaging in terms of per incident costs is the injectors that stick open and hydro-lock the engine. ford and navistar are said to be at odds over the issues and it has cost fomoco upwards of $500 million over their warranty costs in the previous year. hopefully your friend will not experience any of this. however given some of the stuff ive read he should absolutley keep records of maintenance and not attempt mods of any sort. i have a friend who just bought an 05 f250 as well so well see. i have a friend who also bought an 05 f350 and tends to beat on it a little. thanks for the info max ill pass it on to him. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : max dodge

do a web search on biodiesel and decide for yourself. ill say this its definitely going to be profitable to someone not to mention burning cleaner than mineral based fuels. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author christopher thompson wrote at this risk of starting a further argument. im a proponet of alternative fuels but i dont believe hydrogen or hybrid to be it. i believe we could use bio fuels more readily the distribution infastructure is already inplace and is practically a infanately renuable resorce. it uses vegtible oil and ethonal both plant based. infact if you can believe the local paper shell oil is installing a bio fuel station just 4 miles from my home and the station is already under construction. is that not the type of fuel that you have to dump more energy in to get a given amount out i.e. is a net loss and therefore if it were not for gubmint subsidies would not be economoically feasible bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : max dodge

on sun 29 jan 2006 185409 -0000 huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote the most densly populated nations tend to be the most prosperous and china cite every country which is more densely populated than the us has a far lower standard of living. has the potential of being more prosperous than the usa. i think you will potential they have the potential to get their asses kicked if they keep supporting terrorists. ************************* dave .

From : max dodge

agreed but dc isnt just a german company. decisions made in stuttgart affect manufacturing plants here. thus no matter who makes the decisions it is a pleasant change to see that inefficient management is being cut just as inefficient labor normally is. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author the problem here max is this is a german company. i am talking about the american companies that lay off 500 workers and then give the ceo a 10000000 salary increase and bonuses for raising the profit margin. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving actually tbone look at what zeitsche is about to do at dc...... cut management jobs. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author no its about getting america to get off its lard butt and take back its industry but that would mean unions taking wage cuts and the epa being told to shut up and suck on a pine tree. how about we cut your pension or however you get paid. im so sick of hearing cut the employees wages as part of the cure all end all. who the hell here can afford a pay cut and the funny thing here is that all of these pay cuts come from the workers never from the owners or upper management. perhaps if the salaries of these big execs were brought back into reality we would also be far more competitive but god forbid that ever happens. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : huw

menjou@pgh.net writes yep sounds like a factory trained technician changing parts till he hit the right one. if you mean the shotgun approach yes that occurred to me but the evidence of low compression kind of indicates they were sniffing around in the right place. the cracked valve seat altho an unusual place to see cylinder head damage was the problem and was evident to the naked eye once it was apart and cleaned up a little. the question is whether or not they should have replaced the opposite head. lets ask this group when you do a valve job wouldnt it be logical to do both heads i think the answer to that would be yes. the additional cylinder head completely assembled was $353. can you get the valves & seats done on one head then reassembled w/new springs etc for $353. the labor to r&r both heads was already there wasnt it so for $353 apiece we get all brand new heads valves springs rockers & keepers vs buying only 1 new head and hauling the other one to the machine shop. i think we did the right thing here. likely didnt need the o2 sensors. question does a cracked cyl. head have any core value other than as scrap iron .

From : max dodge

on sun 29 jan 2006 140815 -0500 christopher thompson kf4drr@alltel.net wrote ok so you mean to tell me the crude oil admitting its a non renuable resource that we will eventually run out of show how it is non renewable. i assume that is what you meant. ************************* dave .

From : dtj

on sun 29 jan 2006 190212 gmt tom lawrence tnloaswpraemnmcien5g@earthlink.net wrote can some one explain to me why people have such a bug up their butt about top-posting i find it much more convenient when reading through a thread... mottob ot pot morf skoob daer uoy od ************************* dave .

From : dtj

on 29 jan 2006 104832 -0800 treeline12345@yahoo.com treeline12345@yahoo.com wrote ill reply. youre right overpopulation is a big problem. and what drives overpopulation which countries and religions say its bad to practice birth control certainly not the ones with an overpopulation problem. ************************* dave .

From : dtj

none of those are british and none are actually inferior. gm has just had to pay a huge sum to fiat to get out of a contract it could not afford. have you any experience of those cars millions of satisfied customers run them and i have just bought my first fiat recently to go with my year old range rover and eight year old land cruiser. i am very satisfied with all of them. fiat was owned by the italian governement likewise renault by the french. using either as an example of free market business is moot. i do have experience with these cars in the states. fiat was generally not able to take the pounding of distance driving renault was impossible to fix due to propriatary and french governmental restrictions on parts and peugot simply werent numerous enough to bother with. fiat is a family owned business and neither of the others are government owned so i am not sure what you are on about. false. both fiat and renault were owned at some point by the governemnts of their respective origin. did i say that no. but it is evident that some posters here do not wish it to be a free market when they are less competitive only when they come out top. rather hypocritical dont you think not at all. i am very pleased with the position in which dc has placed itself particularly the chrysler division. it is notable that dc and chrysler in particular are well off financially doing more business than previous years and having a better balanced line of product. this is not a coincidence. further i am not complaining about free market economy nor am i complaining about foreign vehicles cruising our highways. indeed i believe competition makes for a better vehicle. however as i stated in my original reply the op wasnt worried about company profit or quality but the fact that dc vehicles were heavy and thus less efficient than other brands. somehow even though i pointed it out you missed that in the original post. the us government is sticking to free market principles in this case they dont always thinking of steel but it is a few posters here that are arguing that they should put up the shutters. i am saying that it will do them more harm than good. no argument here. however their reply isnt particularly about the companies but the welfare of the nation as a whole. then you have a problem. are you a street sweeper or the office coffee maker by any chance the problem is obviously on your end where you think that such jobs would render someone unable to see through your inept reply. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max dodge wrote none of what you are saying makes much sense. evidence of this is your claim that youd buy fiat peugot and renault. great patronize your government by purchasing known inferior cars. none of those are british and none are actually inferior. gm has just had to pay a huge sum to fiat to get out of a contract it could not afford. have you any experience of those cars millions of satisfied customers run them and i have just bought my first fiat recently to go with my year old range rover and eight year old land cruiser. i am very satisfied with all of them. meanwhile you extoll the virtues of a free market economy. sorta hypocritical to throw government owned business in at the top of the diatribe fiat is a family owned business and neither of the others are government owned so i am not sure what you are on about. then revert to free market and then claim the u.s. doesnt like a free market. did i say that no. but it is evident that some posters here do not wish it to be a free market when they are less competitive only when they come out top. rather hypocritical dont you think the us government is sticking to free market principles in this case they dont always thinking of steel but it is a few posters here that are arguing that they should put up the shutters. i am saying that it will do them more harm than good. not making sense to you great neither does your essay. then you have a problem. are you a street sweeper or the office coffee maker by any chance huw .

From : dtj

agreed biofuels are a very good way to go. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author at this risk of starting a further argument. im a proponet of alternative fuels but i dont believe hydrogen or hybrid to be it. i believe we could use bio fuels more readily the distribution infastructure is already inplace and is practically a infanately renuable resorce. it uses vegtible oil and ethonal both plant based. infact if you can believe the local paper shell oil is installing a bio fuel station just 4 miles from my home and the station is already under construction. -- -chris 05 ctd 99 durango comments4u comments4u@nospam.mindspring.com.invalid wrote but there is always opportunity. with the added weight lee iacocca may be tagging chrysler dodge and jeep commercials with built like a mercedes. of course if that turns out to be true chrysler financial will soon be in the business of offering car equity loans for the repair bills. some of these companies just keep missing the point. they could sustain some corporate fat if they produced leaner i.e. energy efficient products. an suv for example that gets 50mpg would sell like hot cakes as would a sedan thats as economical. the price of gas is only going to go up as asian nations consume more of it and compete for it on the world market. anyone who has any sense and whos in the market for a new automobile is going to buy the most economical vehicle that fits their needs. chrysler needs to produce more energy efficient cars that are safer and more reliable. when it does that its financial problems will go away. likewise for gm and ford. .

From : dtj

chrysler needs to produce more energy efficient cars that are safer and more reliable. when it does that its financial problems will go away. likewise for gm and ford. maybe you missed it but deiter zeitsche was promoted to head of dc because chrysler is making a profit. it is hoped he can do the same for dc as a whole. chrysler isnt having any financial problems that arent normal in the course of fiscal operation. compared to gm and ford dc as a whole is doing very well while chrysler group is making a profit. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author comments4u comments4u@nospam.mindspring.com.invalid wrote but there is always opportunity. with the added weight lee iacocca may be tagging chrysler dodge and jeep commercials with built like a mercedes. of course if that turns out to be true chrysler financial will soon be in the business of offering car equity loans for the repair bills. some of these companies just keep missing the point. they could sustain some corporate fat if they produced leaner i.e. energy efficient products. an suv for example that gets 50mpg would sell like hot cakes as would a sedan thats as economical. the price of gas is only going to go up as asian nations consume more of it and compete for it on the world market. anyone who has any sense and whos in the market for a new automobile is going to buy the most economical vehicle that fits their needs. chrysler needs to produce more energy efficient cars that are safer and more reliable. when it does that its financial problems will go away. likewise for gm and ford. .

From : dtj

on sun 29 jan 2006 104505 -0800 theguy theguy@notebook.com wrote i agree with the philosophy but in reality your comment is bs bill. it has not been an open market for a lot of the us industry. foreign industry has had several advantages and help from thier governments that ours have not. you cant have it both ways. either we have an open market and that includes foreign policy from the competing nations governments or we provide the same benefits to our industry that the others have. you can not equalize everything out when the rules are not equal. is your keyboard broke or your brain. ************************* dave .

From : dtj

on sun 29 jan 2006 174432 gmt max dodge max340@verizon.net wrote correction of top posting idiocy attempted... ... consumption. if you are that concerned sir take up the cause of rail transport with your congresssman. a good rail system will cut use of personal vehicles and lower the number of tractor trailers on the highways. this will save far more fuel than a dodge durango that weighs 600 pounds less. number of riders isnt a measure of efficiency. capacity per unit of fuel used is the efficency level. ill agree we are not using our rail efficiently that is my point. but it doesnt make cars more efficient than rail just because we drive cars more frequently. we drive cars more because they are more efficient. if they were not we would choose other methods of transportation. if there was an efficient for me method of transport to my work i would take it but there is not. there is virtually no efficient method of public transportation in the us. ************************* dave .

From : roy

on sun 29 jan 2006 081727 -0800 scott en aztln scottenaztlan@yahoonospam.com wrote no. its about getting america off its lardy ass and competing at world standard productivity levels. you mean like they do over in europe which has both shorter work weeks and more vacation days every year than americans do come now scott you know that europeons are superior to everyone else in every way. well at least in their tiny little minds they are. ************************* dave .

From : roy

on sun 29 jan 2006 101737 -0500 roy roy@home.net wrote no its about getting america to get off its lard butt and take back its industry but that would mean unions taking wage cuts and the epa being told to shut up and suck on a pine tree. how about we cut your pension or however you get paid. im so sick of hearing cut the employees wages as part of the cure all end all. who the hell here can afford a pay cut well maybe if you werent used to getting paid $40 an hour to sweep floors you could deal with getting what normal people get for the same job. it dosent matter how much per hour a person gets. how about you monday go to work and go to your boss and tell him you want to give up 25% of your pay and some of your benifits. i doubt that will happen. but your pretty free to toss other peoples wages around. it isnt so much that people want unions to accept pay cuts as you should never have got what you are getting. right! the guy sweeping the floor walked in and demanded $40 @hour to sweep the floor. son of a bitch! he got it! take me there will ya roy .

From : huw

on sun 29 jan 2006 101737 -0500 roy roy@home.net wrote no its about getting america to get off its lard butt and take back its industry but that would mean unions taking wage cuts and the epa being told to shut up and suck on a pine tree. how about we cut your pension or however you get paid. im so sick of hearing cut the employees wages as part of the cure all end all. who the hell here can afford a pay cut well maybe if you werent used to getting paid $40 an hour to sweep floors you could deal with getting what normal people get for the same job. it isnt so much that people want unions to accept pay cuts as you should never have got what you are getting. ************************* dave .

From : roy

dori a schmetterling wrote oh i dunno...fiat reliability/rust resistance is still not great otherwise i might own an alfa romeo which i try to rent when in italy i cant see why their reliability is not as good as any. rust resistance is ok and they use as many galvanised panels and have as good a warranty as anyone. rust was a particular problem when scrap metal had to be incorporated in sheet steel and was a particular problem in italian french and japanese cars of a period up to the early 90s. and in britain the french cars tend to cluster low down in the satisfaction stakes though some e.g. renault do well in the euroncap tests. admittedly fiat produces some funky cars...and of course owns ferrari... italian engineering has always been absolutely top notch although their electrics have not always been even adequate. this has changed markedly over the last fifteen years. i own several pieces of sophisticated electronically controlled industrial units built in italy from the early 90s and they are rust resistant and i have never had a single electronic problem from their engine management full electronic transmission management or chassis management systems alone or their comunication with each other. admittedly mid 80s models with far less sophistication had a reputation for wiring loom fires but time moves on. i guess renault could be considered private as the french govt only owns about 16%. certainly it is private with a minority shareholder which happens to be a govt investor. eu rules on competition prevent any unfair investment though. huw .

From : christopher thompson

tbone if you are interested there were a couple of reports regarding this iirc in the detroit free press. max i spent a bunch of time going through there and cant find it. do you have it at hand tia roy ive got it at hand http//www.det.com/2005/autosinsider/0510/24/a01-358226.htm thank you sir. roy .

From : dori a schmetterling

roy wrote on sun 29 jan 2006 101737 -0500 roy roy@home.net wrote no its about getting america to get off its lard butt and take back its industry but that would mean unions taking wage cuts and the epa being told to shut up and suck on a pine tree. how about we cut your pension or however you get paid. im so sick of hearing cut the employees wages as part of the cure all end all. who the hell here can afford a pay cut which would you rather have your pay cut or your job cut a lot of ford and gm workers are about to wish they had taken the pay cut... -- you folks continue with the same mantra. cut the workers wages. it is damn easy to say until it affects you. also the same bs it will be your job if you dont take a pay cut the jobs will go anyway. roy calling it a mantra does not make it an invalid point. the post you originally responded to did not *only* mention pay cuts. it also mentioned epa regulations. in my reply to budd i said i was sick of hearing cut the employees wages as part the cure all end all. what i have noticed is nobody has responded to my question. i wonder why..... roy .

From : dori a schmetterling

on sat 28 jan 2006 025241 gmt fmb fmbb@sbcglobal.net wrote stupid question time. snip i was a bit surprised to see only $2k difference in the base price between the 2500 srw and 3500 duelly. makes me wonder why anyone pulling a 5th wheel would ever consider anything but the duelly but you see it all the time. what do you mean by that ive put close to 25k miles on my 5th with my 03 2500 ho. ive been coast to coast and up to coldfoot ak and back and many shorter trips with no issues where a 3500 duelly would have made a difference. i suppose i would have hit more frost heaves and potholes with the larger footprint of the duelly though. and burned more fuel and cost more to maintain.... rotating tires must be fun too.. *g* imho the only time id prefer a dually for rving would be for a big cab-over camper where you have a leaning or stability issue... i cant imagine where youd need it for the little bit of pin weight a 5er has.. mac https//home.comcast.net/mac.davis/woodstuff.htm .

From : dori a schmetterling

on fri 27 jan 2006 132540 -0500 roy roy@home.net wrote on thu 26 jan 2006 145307 -0500 roy roy@home.net wrote thats only the wood part.. https//home.comcast.net/mac.davis/ is the main page... move mouse pointer over the pictures there.. link on the left for trebs.. it is working for me now bro. those are old pics though. get the new ones up! roy damn... i didnt know my fan base was so umm... broad.. *eg* bro do i detect acheap shot there i happen to have a good memory unlike the more aged folks that hang out here.vbg roy actually i thought it was well done and correctly targeted.. *g* mac https//home.comcast.net/mac.davis/woodstuff.htm .

From : dori a schmetterling

bit of a rambling rant. your main points are... das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- ... i think america let them -- japan they gave technology to -- but japan was already getting german technology -- but the americans bought from them -- i agree it needs to be built here -- not assembled here -- and owned by north americans -- actually in all industries here we need to be doing that whenever we can -- canada too -- we all have plenty of resources but we sell them cheap before we even look at using what we need first and then selling them cheap to our neighbours i think there are way too many fat executives at d-c who have forgotten about the average guy -- especially the ones who are going hungry working on their lines -- these guys are having a hard time buying gas or paying for the bus pass -- they really dont care about performance as long as it runs. the vw bug has had a great comeback. did d-c completely forget about the k car we havent. cheap and reliable cheap parts guarantee all the body and major parts will not change over the next 10 years unless there are faults or necessary improvements to be made hey they have been at this long enough that 90s technology in something like that is a no-brainer -- and use existing common parts already being manufactured here wherever they can. make it in 2 models with interchangeable body panels -- all with bench seats -- 2dr 2 seater club with 3 belts cab hatchback with fold-down seats in the back these should be equipped with lap belts with two sets of hookups for baby carriers auto trans optional awd unless they can do this cheap on all models no power accessories-- 4dr 4 seater with 6 belts hatchback station wagon with rear fold-seats and optional identical fold-down seats with same belts found in the 2dr with optional factory roof rack with built-in extension bars auto trans optional awd optional 4wd luxury editions can have power options -- and call it simply the chrysler k k station wagon k 4x4 -- gotta love those old amc eagles put their most reliable components in them and build them or begin moving that way this car helped build their reputation -- and how about designing them so the driver can see all four quarters i think minivans are on their way out -- at least in canada they are doing this in other industries -- what about buy nine get one free -- business incentive -- lets see the police drive around in them grn -- actually was thinking the parking police too but they dont deserve vehicles at all except to get away when someone is trying to assault them vbgrn my dad drove his k-car until it turned from beige to pink. his buddys teased him about his mary-k car while many drove expensive cars. he said he never worried about someone dinging him in the parking lot and his wife has the new car so he doesnt have to worry about getting a call from her -- and its the gentlemanly thing to do -- most had no response having the expensive cars for themselves. he always believed in driving a car into the ground -- and get two of the same thing. unless you need to downsize quickly or you are driving something soon to have problems or its a real peice of crap you bought it because you wanted it so look after it -- it doesnt have to be new -- my 88 dakota is a real babe waiting for motor installation -- bought it with cracked block -- i call it a perfect girly truck but my male neighbours would like to have it too! www3.sympatico.ca/rske projects the poor dakota -- it is very unfair -- toyota did this too -- their littlest trucks they upgraded in size to get more money for them and now there is a big hole in the market that suzuki and the unreliable envoy are filling rach ... .

From : huw

yes. an enduring phenomenon ongoing situation... grin since the introduction of machinery industrial revolution. for example in britain there was massive restructuring in the seventies and now employment is still at among its highest levels and certainly among the highest in western europe perhaps partly because more partners in a family need to work to have sufficient income to enjoy the good life. das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- ... all jobs are of the here today gone tomorrow type in a competitive economy. there is a train of thought that all change is good because it is always followed by innovation and increased competitiveness but im not sure i agree with that. the winners in a previous era are usually resentful if they lose out to new winners. the trick i think is to make sure no one loses out for long and a good standard of living with an opportunity of new employment can be had by all. huw .

From : christopher thompson

oh i dunno...fiat reliability/rust resistance is still not great otherwise i might own an alfa romeo which i try to rent when in italy and in britain the french cars tend to cluster low down in the satisfaction stakes though some e.g. renault do well in the euroncap tests. admittedly fiat produces some funky cars...and of course owns ferrari... i guess renault could be considered private as the french govt only owns about 16%. das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- ... none of those are british and none are actually inferior. ... .

From : tom lawrence

alan lehun wrote scottenaztlan@yahoonospam.com says... no. its about getting america off its lardy ass and competing at world standard productivity levels. you mean like they do over in europe which has both shorter work weeks and more vacation days every year than americans do current average productivity in the european automotive industry is about 66 cars per employee per year. how do the states compare nissan uks sunderland plant fairly consistently built 95 to 99 cars per empoyee in the last few years with 101 in year 2000. honda uk have been up to 83 but vary down to 55. renaults spanish factory made 77 clios per employee. toyota uk build around 86 each man and boy. vws emden plant which builds the passat a direct competitor to toyota uks avensis managed only 27 cars per employee. what is the typical and best and worse that us plants manage huw .

From : huw

ok so you mean to tell me the crude oil admitting its a non renuable resource that we will eventually run out of is gonna stay economically feasible forever -- -chris 05 ctd 99 durango christopher thompson wrote at this risk of starting a further argument. im a proponet of alternative fuels but i dont believe hydrogen or hybrid to be it. i believe we could use bio fuels more readily the distribution infastructure is already inplace and is practically a infanately renuable resorce. it uses vegtible oil and ethonal both plant based. infact if you can believe the local paper shell oil is installing a bio fuel station just 4 miles from my home and the station is already under construction. is that not the type of fuel that you have to dump more energy in to get a given amount out i.e. is a net loss and therefore if it were not for gubmint subsidies would not be economoically feasible bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : theguy

jd wrote huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote in roy wrote on sun 29 jan 2006 101737 -0500 roy roy@home.net wrote no its about getting america to get off its lard butt and take back its industry but that would mean unions taking wage cuts and the epa being told to shut up and suck on a pine tree. how about we cut your pension or however you get paid. im so sick of hearing cut the employees wages as part of the cure all end all. who the hell here can afford a pay cut which would you rather have your pay cut or your job cut a lot of ford and gm workers are about to wish they had taken the pay cut... -- you folks continue with the same mantra. cut the workers wages. it is damn easy to say until it affects you. also the same bs it will be your job if you dont take a pay cut the jobs will go anyway. it may be a choice between some jobs going and a pay cut for the rest or all of the jobs going. all jobs are of the here today gone tomorrow type in a competitive economy. there is a train of thought that all change is good because it is always followed by innovation and increased competitiveness but im not sure i agree with that. the winners in a previous era are usually resentful if they lose out to new winners. the trick i think is to make sure no one loses out for long and a good standard of living with an opportunity of new employment can be had by all. huw really overpopulation is the main culprit also in most problems on earth. if there werent teeming masses of desperate people in 3rd world nations begging to work 12 hour days for $1 an hour then the ceos of corporations in industrialized nations wouldnt be salivating at the thought of moving production to these 3rd world nations. but of course the middle classes in industrialized nations are getting hurt and their buying power is decreasing which will hurt the long term health of the economy and the very corporations that are leaving the usa. botton line too many folks overpopulation and more importantly the poor earth is being raped environmentally by this swarm of parasites humans. growth for growths sake is the ideology of the cancer cell. edward abbey. its funny i talk of overpopulation and no one ever replies. apathy and ignorance. the most densly populated nations tend to be the most prosperous and china has the potential of being more prosperous than the usa. i think you will find that japan has a per capita income equal or better than america. history shows that no hugely wealthy and dominant power stays at the top indeffinately. there are too many aspirational and competitive nations snapping at the title. also the dominant nation gets complacent after a while and starts whinging about the other upstarts. huw .

From : theguy

jd wrote really overpopulation is the main culprit also in most problems on earth. if there werent teeming masses of desperate people in 3rd world nations begging to work 12 hour days for $1 an hour then the ceos of corporations in industrialized nations wouldnt be salivating at the thought of moving production to these 3rd world nations. but of course the middle classes in industrialized nations are getting hurt and their buying power is decreasing which will hurt the long term health of the economy and the very corporations that are leaving the usa. botton line too many folks overpopulation and more importantly the poor earth is being raped environmentally by this swarm of parasites humans. growth for growths sake is the ideology of the cancer cell. edward abbey. its funny i talk of overpopulation and no one ever replies. apathy and ignorance. ill reply. youre right overpopulation is a big problem. and what drives overpopulation which countries and religions say its bad to practice birth control .

From : bill putney

on sun 29 jan 2006 122119 -0500 bill putney bptn@kinez.net wrote roy wrote on sun 29 jan 2006 101737 -0500 roy roy@home.net wrote no its about getting america to get off its lard butt and take back its industry but that would mean unions taking wage cuts and the epa being told to shut up and suck on a pine tree. how about we cut your pension or however you get paid. im so sick of hearing cut the employees wages as part of the cure all end all. who the hell here can afford a pay cut which would you rather have your pay cut or your job cut a lot of ford and gm workers are about to wish they had taken the pay cut... -- you folks continue with the same mantra. cut the workers wages. it is damn easy to say until it affects you. also the same bs it will be your job if you dont take a pay cut the jobs will go anyway. roy calling it a mantra does not make it an invalid point. the post you originally responded to did not *only* mention pay cuts. it also mentioned epa regulations. you cant isolate any one point as a cause/cure. typically the same people who are the union protectionists are also in favor of internal legislation and international agreements that ultimately force jobs overseas. both points have to be addressed together. an open market eventually equalizes everything out - change or die. i agree with the philosophy but in reality your comment is bs bill. it has not been an open market for a lot of the us industry. foreign industry has had several advantages and help from thier governments that ours have not. you cant have it both ways. either we have an open market and that includes foreign policy from the competing nations governments or we provide the same benefits to our industry that the others have. you can not equalize everything out when the rules are not equal. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : alan lehun

christopher thompson wrote at this risk of starting a further argument. im a proponet of alternative fuels but i dont believe hydrogen or hybrid to be it. i believe we could use bio fuels more readily the distribution infastructure is already inplace and is practically a infanately renuable resorce. it uses vegtible oil and ethonal both plant based. infact if you can believe the local paper shell oil is installing a bio fuel station just 4 miles from my home and the station is already under construction. is that not the type of fuel that you have to dump more energy in to get a given amount out i.e. is a net loss and therefore if it were not for gubmint subsidies would not be economoically feasible bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : dori a schmetterling

sorry! old ! http//www.consumeraffairs.com/recalls04/nhtsadodgedurango.html .

From : bude

no its about getting america to get off its lard butt and take back its industry but that would mean unions taking wage cuts and the epa being told to shut up and suck on a pine tree. how about we cut your pension or however you get paid. im so sick of hearing cut the employees wages as part of the cure all end all. who the hell here can afford a pay cut roy .

From : bill putney

on sun 29 jan 2006 112041 -0500 shawn hirn srhi@comcast.net wrote comments4u comments4u@nospam.mindspring.com.invalid wrote but there is always opportunity. with the added weight lee iacocca may be tagging chrysler dodge and jeep commercials with built like a mercedes. of course if that turns out to be true chrysler financial will soon be in the business of offering car equity loans for the repair bills. some of these companies just keep missing the point. they could sustain some corporate fat if they produced leaner i.e. energy efficient products. an suv for example that gets 50mpg would sell like hot cakes as would a sedan thats as economical. the price of gas is only going to go up as asian nations consume more of it and compete for it on the world market. anyone who has any sense and whos in the market for a new automobile is going to buy the most economical vehicle that fits their needs. chrysler needs to produce more energy efficient cars that are safer and more reliable. when it does that its financial problems will go away. likewise for gm and ford. interesting thread. as i understand it one of the big cost advantages that the japanese have is simply that their plants are newer and more modern. it costs a whole lot less to come in and build new efficient factories than to rebuild an old system like the big three had. we really didnt do anything to help promote new factories by our auto industry either. we sort of sat around watching playing the violin while this fire burned. in fact the pressure was there from the politicians to retool the factories which costs a lot and in the end still creates an inefficient assembly line because the politicians wanted their public to see them fighting to keep their same jobs at the same factories. even then the big three have changed their assembly and quality. my dodge truck has been every bit as reliable as the two japanese cars and one old german car that i have. i think the problem lies in imagination. honda built a car that looked good and people wanted to buy. ford gm and dc built small cars that looked cheap. seems to me that the ford escape is one of the first units to come along that can catch the imagination of the public and is a small somewhat fuel efficient car. i dont think the problem has been the work force but rather the management. i mean look at what the gm response was. the japanese hit the suv market with great little reliable cars that got pretty decent mileage for their days. gm responded with the blazer! it had a six in it that pretty much self destructed at 60000 miles got about 13 miles per gallon and looked like a cardboard box on four tires. what a great response. in the 20 years since then what has gm designed to compete with the pilot cr-v forester four runner i mean come on they have certainly had enough time to come up with something. they havent. who in the world is running that place or better yet is anyone running that place but and tbone makes this point the cost cutting falls on the worker and not on the management. maybe that is just the way that it is but it doesnt seem fair. the workers have been out there building cars it is the leaders the managers and our politicians that have screwed this up. but that seems to be the norm. i really think that other nations have been able to take advantage of a period when our political leaders have just sucked. it isnt just the auto industry that has suffered. it is just an example of poor planning and poor leadership. then the fix seems to be to take away the pay and benefits that the workers have. and we buy into that philosophy. look at this thread. we all see it happening and here we are talking about it. what are our politicians doing about it playing partisan politics to keep thier jobs. other than that they are doing pretty much nothing other than making sure that thier pay and benefits are not reduced. this isnt a repub v. demo rant either they both have been very lacking. that i believe is where not only the blame lies but also the answer. .

From : jd

roy wrote on sun 29 jan 2006 101737 -0500 roy roy@home.net wrote no its about getting america to get off its lard butt and take back its industry but that would mean unions taking wage cuts and the epa being told to shut up and suck on a pine tree. how about we cut your pension or however you get paid. im so sick of hearing cut the employees wages as part of the cure all end all. who the hell here can afford a pay cut which would you rather have your pay cut or your job cut a lot of ford and gm workers are about to wish they had taken the pay cut... -- you folks continue with the same mantra. cut the workers wages. it is damn easy to say until it affects you. also the same bs it will be your job if you dont take a pay cut the jobs will go anyway. roy calling it a mantra does not make it an invalid point. the post you originally responded to did not *only* mention pay cuts. it also mentioned epa regulations. you cant isolate any one point as a cause/cure. typically the same people who are the union protectionists are also in favor of internal legislation and international agreements that ultimately force jobs overseas. both points have to be addressed together. an open market eventually equalizes everything out - change or die. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : huw

scottenaztlan@yahoonospam.com says... no. its about getting america off its lardy ass and competing at world standard productivity levels. you mean like they do over in europe which has both shorter work weeks and more vacation days every year than americans do current average productivity in the european automotive industry is about 66 cars per employee per year. how do the states compare -- alan lehun .

From : max dodge

bill putney wrote scott en aztln wrote on sun 29 jan 2006 092413 +0000 pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote no. its about getting america off its lardy ass and competing at world standard productivity levels. you mean like they do over in europe which has both shorter work weeks and more vacation days every year than americans do imagine how much worse their presently abysmal unemployment numbers would be if they had the longer work week and less vacation time i.e. theyd have to lay people off to achieve the same number of work hours/productivity/output levels. although this is not a new story it is relevant http//.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/southasia/3564275.stm huw .

From : huw

huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote in roy wrote on sun 29 jan 2006 101737 -0500 roy roy@home.net wrote no its about getting america to get off its lard butt and take back its industry but that would mean unions taking wage cuts and the epa being told to shut up and suck on a pine tree. how about we cut your pension or however you get paid. im so sick of hearing cut the employees wages as part of the cure all end all. who the hell here can afford a pay cut which would you rather have your pay cut or your job cut a lot of ford and gm workers are about to wish they had taken the pay cut... -- you folks continue with the same mantra. cut the workers wages. it is damn easy to say until it affects you. also the same bs it will be your job if you dont take a pay cut the jobs will go anyway. it may be a choice between some jobs going and a pay cut for the rest or all of the jobs going. all jobs are of the here today gone tomorrow type in a competitive economy. there is a train of thought that all change is good because it is always followed by innovation and increased competitiveness but im not sure i agree with that. the winners in a previous era are usually resentful if they lose out to new winners. the trick i think is to make sure no one loses out for long and a good standard of living with an opportunity of new employment can be had by all. huw really overpopulation is the main culprit also in most problems on earth. if there werent teeming masses of desperate people in 3rd world nations begging to work 12 hour days for $1 an hour then the ceos of corporations in industrialized nations wouldnt be salivating at the thought of moving production to these 3rd world nations. but of course the middle classes in industrialized nations are getting hurt and their buying power is decreasing which will hurt the long term health of the economy and the very corporations that are leaving the usa. botton line too many folks overpopulation and more importantly the poor earth is being raped environmentally by this swarm of parasites humans. growth for growths sake is the ideology of the cancer cell. edward abbey. its funny i talk of overpopulation and no one ever replies. apathy and ignorance. ----== posted via feeds.com - unlimited-unrestricted-secure usenet ==---- http//www.feeds.com the #1 group service in the world! 120000+ groups ----= east and west-coast server farms - total privacy via encryption =---- .

From : max dodge

max dodge wrote none of what you are saying makes much sense. evidence of this is your claim that youd buy fiat peugot and renault. great patronize your government by purchasing known inferior cars. none of those are british and none are actually inferior. gm has just had to pay a huge sum to fiat to get out of a contract it could not afford. have you any experience of those cars millions of satisfied customers run them and i have just bought my first fiat recently to go with my year old range rover and eight year old land cruiser. i am very satisfied with all of them. meanwhile you extoll the virtues of a free market economy. sorta hypocritical to throw government owned business in at the top of the diatribe fiat is a family owned business and neither of the others are government owned so i am not sure what you are on about. then revert to free market and then claim the u.s. doesnt like a free market. did i say that no. but it is evident that some posters here do not wish it to be a free market when they are less competitive only when they come out top. rather hypocritical dont you think the us government is sticking to free market principles in this case they dont always thinking of steel but it is a few posters here that are arguing that they should put up the shutters. i am saying that it will do them more harm than good. not making sense to you great neither does your essay. then you have a problem. are you a street sweeper or the office coffee maker by any chance huw .

From : tbone

number of riders isnt a measure of efficiency. capacity per unit of fuel used is the efficency level. ill agree we are not using our rail efficiently that is my point. but it doesnt make cars more efficient than rail just because we drive cars more frequently. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author and i forgot to mention huws point about fuel per passenger mile. as things are now many trains run at well below capacity so the unit use of fuel can be high. just because the power stations feeding the rail network are out of sight does not mean they dont use fuel. or the diesel engines pulling the trains dont use prodigious amounts of diesel... das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- rail is a pipe dream as a big solution. i saw the results of a study in the uk about getting freight onto rail. if rail freight were doubled ! overnight a physical impossibility given the lack of capacity so imagine the huge investment then road freight would go down by a mere 10%. most freight is not suitable for economic and efficient transport by rail. on passenger traffic/cars i wonder what diff it would make. i like to take the train for city centre-to-centre journeys but how may of those do i make why is it that in major countries the only really viable routes are the major ones like along the east coast boston-washington dc london-glasgow or edinburgh with only the cities on the route munich-hamburg up the east or west with cities on the way paris-lyon. das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- ... consumption. if you are that concerned sir take up the cause of rail transport with your congresssman. a good rail system will cut use of personal vehicles and lower the number of tractor trailers on the highways. this will save far more fuel than a dodge durango that weighs 600 pounds less. -- max ... .

From : max dodge

rail is a pipe dream as a big solution. only in terms of political ability to get it done. union pacific and bnsf are both expanding capacity for intermodal loads as well as traffic capacity on certain routes. both have committed huge amounts to this effort counted in billons of dollars. i saw the results of a study in the uk about getting freight onto rail. if rail freight were doubled ! overnight a physical impossibility given the lack of capacity so imagine the huge investment then road freight would go down by a mere 10%. there is no need to double overnight so your statement is garbage at best. however doubling over a reasonable period of time will gain far more than just a 10% reduction in road freight. most freight is not suitable for economic and efficient transport by rail. more rubbish. union pacific had a contract with ups to run west coast to midwest shipments. if ups freight is suitable for rail certainly anything is suitable for rail depending on quantity. given the number of trucks on the highways i have to believe the quantity for most commodities is large enough to ship by rail. the reason the contract was dropped was your aforementioned lack of capacity. union pacific is remedying this with a huge capital investment not only on track and terminals but in locomotive purchases. on passenger traffic/cars i wonder what diff it would make. i like to take the train for city centre-to-centre journeys but how may of those do i make why is it that in major countries the only really viable routes are the major ones like along the east coast boston-washington dc london-glasgow or edinburgh with only the cities on the route munich-hamburg up the east or west with cities on the way paris-lyon. because the lack of passengers makes ridership low thus the trains go away as a result of simple economics. however if the government were to be serious about fuel conservation and had a real energy policy investment in and promotion of rail travel would be in the forefront. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author rail is a pipe dream as a big solution. i saw the results of a study in the uk about getting freight onto rail. if rail freight were doubled ! overnight a physical impossibility given the lack of capacity so imagine the huge investment then road freight would go down by a mere 10%. most freight is not suitable for economic and efficient transport by rail. on passenger traffic/cars i wonder what diff it would make. i like to take the train for city centre-to-centre journeys but how may of those do i make why is it that in major countries the only really viable routes are the major ones like along the east coast boston-washington dc london-glasgow or edinburgh with only the cities on the route munich-hamburg up the east or west with cities on the way paris-lyon. das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- ... consumption. if you are that concerned sir take up the cause of rail transport with your congresssman. a good rail system will cut use of personal vehicles and lower the number of tractor trailers on the highways. this will save far more fuel than a dodge durango that weighs 600 pounds less. -- max ... .

From : bill putney

tbone if you are interested there were a couple of reports regarding this iirc in the detroit free press. max i spent a bunch of time going through there and cant find it. do you have it at hand tia roy ive got it at hand http//www.det.com/2005/autosinsider/0510/24/a01-358226.htm .

From : max dodge

you might also look into replacing the blower as well. it is drawing too much current. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving suddenly without warning tom lawrence exclaimed 26-jan-06 302 pm i just realized on the way to work this morning that the fan in my 2002 dakota qc only works in the highest setting. i assume this to mean that i need to replace the fan is this correct nope - blower motor resistor block. look up under the dash and you should see it bolted/screwed to the blower motor housing. its got a wiring harness running to it with 4 wires. unplug the connector unbolt/screw the pack and replace it. fairly simple to do... fyi this is a common problem; my truck 2001 dakota been through two so far. third one if/when it goes ill replace myself. fyi its such a simple job that the chrysler dealer here in the uk hasnt charged me for installation of either of them! takes em 5 or 10 minutes. jmc .

From : max dodge

actually tbone look at what zeitsche is about to do at dc...... cut management jobs. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author no its about getting america to get off its lard butt and take back its industry but that would mean unions taking wage cuts and the epa being told to shut up and suck on a pine tree. how about we cut your pension or however you get paid. im so sick of hearing cut the employees wages as part of the cure all end all. who the hell here can afford a pay cut and the funny thing here is that all of these pay cuts come from the workers never from the owners or upper management. perhaps if the salaries of these big execs were brought back into reality we would also be far more competitive but god forbid that ever happens. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : christopher thompson

to have the dealer fix whatever is wrong will almost certainly cost more than purchasing a new aftermarket unit. otoh i have a perfect raz unit am/fm/cd/cassette cd changer controls rds etc. that i will sell to you for $100 plus shipping. heres a pic http//www.wjjeeps.com/radioraz2a.jpg its the oem unit still in my 03 dak which will plug right into your harness for the rbk with no modifications. let me know if youre interested. $wk5.81@02.roc.ny joe... i appreciate your very candid and timely response. i would appreciate further any info that helped you to reach your conclusion. john john carrington johnc@frontiernet.net wrote in vehicle info 2002 dodge dakota quad slt 3.9 auto. radio info sales code rbk am & fm stereo radio with graphic equalizer cd player and cd changer controls. see owners manual page 105. the radio works well for the first 15 minutes. the controls can be accuated. after playing the radio for approx. 15 minutes any manipulation of the on/off/volume control turns the radio off; the display blinks on and off for a length of time up to ten minutes and then the radio plays normally until the on/off/ volume control is turned pushed or manipulated. question what is wrong and what is the fix. the unit is fubar; the fix is a replacement. the most economical fix is an aftermarket unit. .

From : bill putney

very nice indeed!!!! would work great up here in the north!!! lorne nice garage. how big is that thing and btw you suck!!! - yeah.... i know. about 2000 sq. ft. some more pictures here http//home.earthlink.net/tlawrence53/ .

From : john s

nice garage. how big is that thing and btw you suck!!! - yeah.... i know. about 2000 sq. ft. some more pictures here http//home.earthlink.net/tlawrence53/ adaware blocked a pop-up and crashed the browser rach .

From : huw

none of what you are saying makes much sense. evidence of this is your claim that youd buy fiat peugot and renault. great patronize your government by purchasing known inferior cars. meanwhile you extoll the virtues of a free market economy. sorta hypocritical to throw government owned business in at the top of the diatribe then revert to free market and then claim the u.s. doesnt like a free market. not making sense to you great neither does your essay. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author budd cochran wrote no its about getting america to get off its lard butt and take back its industry but that would mean unions taking wage cuts and the epa being told to shut up and suck on a pine tree. if you want to buy american it needs to be owned and built here. japan and germany didnt lose ww ii they just waited and bought us off. thats put me off jaguar volvo saab land rover ford vauxhall and all the other american owned brands we buy in europe then. f*** um foreign things. well buy european domestic products like renault fiat and peugeot instead. but wait how does nationalism and protectionism help all those american ford and gm brands oh it doesnt it guarantees even bigger losses for them. perhaps americans only believe in free trade when the going is good for them yes that is probably it. fact is there is only one way to stem those losses at ford and gm and that is for them to become more efficient and trade their way out. it can be done. just look at the example of nissan which under french management has been transformed from imminent bancruptcy to a modern success story in less than ten years. there is nothing magical about japanese or german industry. just look at the present debacle at mitsubishi which daimler/chrysler could not turn around. if you want a global recession where you are absolutely guaranteed to have fewer sales and total business failures then certainly go protectionist. if you want continued relitive prosperity and employment then become competitive and grow your economy. there is no stopping china and other major competitors becoming more prosperous because they are coming around to the american way of doing business. if enough trade is done both ways then both economies win. obviously america has more to lose and china has more to win but what you need is a win/win situation. it is inevitable though that china will become a stronger economy than the usa in the medium term. huw .

From : tbone

at this risk of starting a further argument. im a proponet of alternative fuels but i dont believe hydrogen or hybrid to be it. i believe we could use bio fuels more readily the distribution infastructure is already inplace and is practically a infanately renuable resorce. it uses vegtible oil and ethonal both plant based. infact if you can believe the local paper shell oil is installing a bio fuel station just 4 miles from my home and the station is already under construction. -- -chris 05 ctd 99 durango comments4u comments4u@nospam.mindspring.com.invalid wrote but there is always opportunity. with the added weight lee iacocca may be tagging chrysler dodge and jeep commercials with built like a mercedes. of course if that turns out to be true chrysler financial will soon be in the business of offering car equity loans for the repair bills. some of these companies just keep missing the point. they could sustain some corporate fat if they produced leaner i.e. energy efficient products. an suv for example that gets 50mpg would sell like hot cakes as would a sedan thats as economical. the price of gas is only going to go up as asian nations consume more of it and compete for it on the world market. anyone who has any sense and whos in the market for a new automobile is going to buy the most economical vehicle that fits their needs. chrysler needs to produce more energy efficient cars that are safer and more reliable. when it does that its financial problems will go away. likewise for gm and ford. .

From : roy

sounds like the circuit board has a short or open circuit in there some where.. cheaper to just replace the unit with some thing else. lorne joe... i appreciate your very candid and timely response. i would appreciate further any info that helped you to reach your conclusion. john john carrington johnc@frontiernet.net wrote in vehicle info 2002 dodge dakota quad slt 3.9 auto. radio info sales code rbk am & fm stereo radio with graphic equalizer cd player and cd changer controls. see owners manual page 105. the radio works well for the first 15 minutes. the controls can be accuated. after playing the radio for approx. 15 minutes any manipulation of the on/off/volume control turns the radio off; the display blinks on and off for a length of time up to ten minutes and then the radio plays normally until the on/off/ volume control is turned pushed or manipulated. question what is wrong and what is the fix. the unit is fubar; the fix is a replacement. the most economical fix is an aftermarket unit. .

From : scott en aztln

on sun 29 jan 2006 101737 -0500 roy roy@home.net wrote no its about getting america to get off its lard butt and take back its industry but that would mean unions taking wage cuts and the epa being told to shut up and suck on a pine tree. how about we cut your pension or however you get paid. im so sick of hearing cut the employees wages as part of the cure all end all. who the hell here can afford a pay cut which would you rather have your pay cut or your job cut a lot of ford and gm workers are about to wish they had taken the pay cut... -- you folks continue with the same mantra. cut the workers wages. it is damn easy to say until it affects you. also the same bs it will be your job if you dont take a pay cut the jobs will go anyway. roy .

From : shawn hirn

roy wrote no its about getting america to get off its lard butt and take back its industry but that would mean unions taking wage cuts and the epa being told to shut up and suck on a pine tree. how about we cut your pension or however you get paid. im so sick of hearing cut the employees wages as part of the cure all end all. who the hell here can afford a pay cut roy obviously roy you have problems with cause-effect thinking. if you apply for a commodity-type job and another guy is applying for the same job and he demands less money to accept employment which do you think will get hired if you can answer that question then you have the logic skills to address the above issue. if not then... bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : scott en aztln

on sun 29 jan 2006 101737 -0500 roy roy@home.net wrote no its about getting america to get off its lard butt and take back its industry but that would mean unions taking wage cuts and the epa being told to shut up and suck on a pine tree. how about we cut your pension or however you get paid. im so sick of hearing cut the employees wages as part of the cure all end all. who the hell here can afford a pay cut which would you rather have your pay cut or your job cut a lot of ford and gm workers are about to wish they had taken the pay cut... -- what the heck ill play too. - dave .

From : scott en aztln

comments4u comments4u@nospam.mindspring.com.invalid wrote but there is always opportunity. with the added weight lee iacocca may be tagging chrysler dodge and jeep commercials with built like a mercedes. of course if that turns out to be true chrysler financial will soon be in the business of offering car equity loans for the repair bills. some of these companies just keep missing the point. they could sustain some corporate fat if they produced leaner i.e. energy efficient products. an suv for example that gets 50mpg would sell like hot cakes as would a sedan thats as economical. the price of gas is only going to go up as asian nations consume more of it and compete for it on the world market. anyone who has any sense and whos in the market for a new automobile is going to buy the most economical vehicle that fits their needs. chrysler needs to produce more energy efficient cars that are safer and more reliable. when it does that its financial problems will go away. likewise for gm and ford. .

From : rachel easson

comments4u wrote with job cuts announced on both sides of the atlantic its clear daimler-chrysler is serious about cutting the fat. even more it has announced plans for increased production at the currently hot chrysler unit without additional workers. that is truely cutting the fat. but observers wonder if daimler-chrysler has really identified all its fat. its not just in the workforce. it is in the cars and trucks. at the chrysler unit the new dodge dakota which perhaps only coincidentally is selling poorly picked up 600 pounds in its re-design all for a paltry additional 2 inches back seat room. how did you determine that the 600 pounds were added solely to allow 2 inches back seat room. but it merely followed the example of the pacifica over 4000 pounds for a six passenger vehicle that has all the luggage space - in both shape and volume - of a 78 plymouth horizon. the pacifica isnt even in the same league as chryslers all time weight efficient 6 passenger vehicle the then downsized 79 new yorker newport and st. regis at under 3800 pounds. the extra weight is generally not evident on the road thanks to chryslers potent engines. but it is at the gas station. and it certainly takes a toll in increased wear of mechanical parts. it may not matter however if the chrysler unit can convince customers the extra weight means greater quality. mercedes has been quite successful until recently with this strategy. mercedes economy car the c230 makes its tires scream with a hefty load of 3405 pounds. in contrast a honda civic with 5 cubic feet greater combined capacity weighs 777 pounds less. one question that should be answered before deciding that the weight should cut is what the weight is used for. but there is always opportunity. with the added weight lee iacocca may be tagging chrysler dodge and jeep commercials with built like a mercedes. do you really think that chrysler or any other car maker is simply adding steel to push the weight numbers up come on! of course if that turns out to be true chrysler financial will soon be in the business of offering car equity loans for the repair bills. .

From : budd cochran mrd150 preciscom spam net

tbone if you are interested there were a couple of reports regarding this iirc in the detroit free press. max i spent a bunch of time going through there and cant find it. do you have it at hand tia roy max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author not really its very relevant since ford has bought back 1000 units of the psd. problems range from turbo vanes breaking and being injested to engine management glitches. perhaps the most damaging in terms of per incident costs is the injectors that stick open and hydro-lock the engine. ford and navistar are said to be at odds over the issues and it has cost fomoco upwards of $500 million over their warranty costs in the previous year. hopefully your friend will not experience any of this. however given some of the stuff ive read he should absolutley keep records of maintenance and not attempt mods of any sort. i have a friend who just bought an 05 f250 as well so well see. i have a friend who also bought an 05 f350 and tends to beat on it a little. thanks for the info max ill pass it on to him. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : dori a schmetterling

no its about getting america to get off its lard butt and take back its industry but that would mean unions taking wage cuts and the epa being told to shut up and suck on a pine tree. if you want to buy american it needs to be owned and built here. japan and germany didnt lose ww ii they just waited and bought us off. budd i think america let them -- japan they gave technology to -- but japan was already getting german technology -- but the americans bought from them -- i agree it needs to be built here -- not assembled here -- and owned by north americans -- actually in all industries here we need to be doing that whenever we can -- canada too -- we all have plenty of resources but we sell them cheap before we even look at using what we need first and then selling them cheap to our neighbours i think there are way too many fat executives at d-c who have forgotten about the average guy -- especially the ones who are going hungry working on their lines -- these guys are having a hard time buying gas or paying for the bus pass -- they really dont care about performance as long as it runs. the vw bug has had a great comeback. did d-c completely forget about the k car we havent. cheap and reliable cheap parts guarantee all the body and major parts will not change over the next 10 years unless there are faults or necessary improvements to be made hey they have been at this long enough that 90s technology in something like that is a no-brainer -- and use existing common parts already being manufactured here wherever they can. make it in 2 models with interchangeable body panels -- all with bench seats -- 2dr 2 seater club with 3 belts cab hatchback with fold-down seats in the back these should be equipped with lap belts with two sets of hookups for baby carriers auto trans optional awd unless they can do this cheap on all models no power accessories-- 4dr 4 seater with 6 belts hatchback station wagon with rear fold-seats and optional identical fold-down seats with same belts found in the 2dr with optional factory roof rack with built-in extension bars auto trans optional awd optional 4wd luxury editions can have power options -- and call it simply the chrysler k k station wagon k 4x4 -- gotta love those old amc eagles put their most reliable components in them and build them or begin moving that way this car helped build their reputation -- and how about designing them so the driver can see all four quarters i think minivans are on their way out -- at least in canada they are doing this in other industries -- what about buy nine get one free -- business incentive -- lets see the police drive around in them grn -- actually was thinking the parking police too but they dont deserve vehicles at all except to get away when someone is trying to assault them vbgrn my dad drove his k-car until it turned from beige to pink. his buddys teased him about his mary-k car while many drove expensive cars. he said he never worried about someone dinging him in the parking lot and his wife has the new car so he doesnt have to worry about getting a call from her -- and its the gentlemanly thing to do -- most had no response having the expensive cars for themselves. he always believed in driving a car into the ground -- and get two of the same thing. unless you need to downsize quickly or you are driving something soon to have problems or its a real peice of crap you bought it because you wanted it so look after it -- it doesnt have to be new -- my 88 dakota is a real babe waiting for motor installation -- bought it with cracked block -- i call it a perfect girly truck but my male neighbours would like to have it too! www3.sympatico.ca/rske projects the poor dakota -- it is very unfair -- toyota did this too -- their littlest trucks they upgraded in size to get more money for them and now there is a big hole in the market that suzuki and the unreliable envoy are filling rach comments4u wrote with job cuts announced on both sides of the atlantic its clear daimler-chrysler is serious about cutting the fat. even more it has announced plans for increased production at the currently hot chrysler unit without additional workers. that is truely cutting the fat. but observers wonder if daimler-chrysler has really identified all its fat. no. its about getting america off its lardy ass and competing at world standard productivity levels. compete or die. the world is hungry for jobs and theres no space for lazy weaklings. graham .

From : huw

and i forgot to mention huws point about fuel per passenger mile. as things are now many trains run at well below capacity so the unit use of fuel can be high. just because the power stations feeding the rail network are out of sight does not mean they dont use fuel. or the diesel engines pulling the trains dont use prodigious amounts of diesel... das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- rail is a pipe dream as a big solution. i saw the results of a study in the uk about getting freight onto rail. if rail freight were doubled ! overnight a physical impossibility given the lack of capacity so imagine the huge investment then road freight would go down by a mere 10%. most freight is not suitable for economic and efficient transport by rail. on passenger traffic/cars i wonder what diff it would make. i like to take the train for city centre-to-centre journeys but how may of those do i make why is it that in major countries the only really viable routes are the major ones like along the east coast boston-washington dc london-glasgow or edinburgh with only the cities on the route munich-hamburg up the east or west with cities on the way paris-lyon. das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- ... consumption. if you are that concerned sir take up the cause of rail transport with your congresssman. a good rail system will cut use of personal vehicles and lower the number of tractor trailers on the highways. this will save far more fuel than a dodge durango that weighs 600 pounds less. -- max ... .

From : max dodge

rail is a pipe dream as a big solution. i saw the results of a study in the uk about getting freight onto rail. if rail freight were doubled ! overnight a physical impossibility given the lack of capacity so imagine the huge investment then road freight would go down by a mere 10%. most freight is not suitable for economic and efficient transport by rail. on passenger traffic/cars i wonder what diff it would make. i like to take the train for city centre-to-centre journeys but how may of those do i make why is it that in major countries the only really viable routes are the major ones like along the east coast boston-washington dc london-glasgow or edinburgh with only the cities on the route munich-hamburg up the east or west with cities on the way paris-lyon. das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- ... consumption. if you are that concerned sir take up the cause of rail transport with your congresssman. a good rail system will cut use of personal vehicles and lower the number of tractor trailers on the highways. this will save far more fuel than a dodge durango that weighs 600 pounds less. -- max ... .

From : roy

max dodge wrote but i suspect none of that matters as the author of the original post is likely just another whiner in a long line of those concerned about oil consumption. if you are that concerned sir take up the cause of rail transport with your congresssman. a good rail system will cut use of personal vehicles yes it will do that but fuel use per passenger mile is higher by train and passengers still have to get to the station and from the station to their destination at the other end. and lower the number of tractor trailers on the highways. this will save far more fuel than a dodge durango that weighs 600 pounds less. as above the freight has to reach the station be handled onto the train offloaded and trucked to its final detination. hardly efficient and not likely to save a drop of oil. could even be more expensive. in fact it is more expensive less efficient and less convenient with time delays as well otherwise business would still use trains as the primary means of transport for goods if not people. huw .

From : huw

yet not a word about gm whose entire chevy lineup contained just three cars compared to its six suvs. one of those cars is the corvette not exactly a best seller given its small market share. nor any word on ford which was almost as guilty as gm in the bias towards suvs. nor any word on how ford just announced closure of 14 plants in the u.s. while dc is cutting jobs one should note that those jobs will come off the roster of executives. addditionally 75% of those jobs are being cut in dc headquarters homeland germany. further while the weight of vehicles is noted what isnt noted is the fact that each of those vehicles was the only offering from that particular nameplate in each market segment. dodge has one suv not six like chevy. but i suspect none of that matters as the author of the original post is likely just another whiner in a long line of those concerned about oil consumption. if you are that concerned sir take up the cause of rail transport with your congresssman. a good rail system will cut use of personal vehicles and lower the number of tractor trailers on the highways. this will save far more fuel than a dodge durango that weighs 600 pounds less. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author with job cuts announced on both sides of the atlantic its clear daimler-chrysler is serious about cutting the fat. even more it has announced plans for increased production at the currently hot chrysler unit without additional workers. that is truely cutting the fat. but observers wonder if daimler-chrysler has really identified all its fat. its not just in the workforce. it is in the cars and trucks. at the chrysler unit the new dodge dakota which perhaps only coincidentally is selling poorly picked up 600 pounds in its re-design all for a paltry additional 2 inches back seat room. but it merely followed the example of the pacifica over 4000 pounds for a six passenger vehicle that has all the luggage space - in both shape and volume - of a 78 plymouth horizon. the pacifica isnt even in the same league as chryslers all time weight efficient 6 passenger vehicle the then downsized 79 new yorker newport and st. regis at under 3800 pounds. the extra weight is generally not evident on the road thanks to chryslers potent engines. but it is at the gas station. and it certainly takes a toll in increased wear of mechanical parts. it may not matter however if the chrysler unit can convince customers the extra weight means greater quality. mercedes has been quite successful until recently with this strategy. mercedes economy car the c230 makes its tires scream with a hefty load of 3405 pounds. in contrast a honda civic with 5 cubic feet greater combined capacity weighs 777 pounds less. but there is always opportunity. with the added weight lee iacocca may be tagging chrysler dodge and jeep commercials with built like a mercedes. of course if that turns out to be true chrysler financial will soon be in the business of offering car equity loans for the repair bills. .

From : pooh bear

on sun 29 jan 2006 115819 gmt greg surratt glsurratt@verizon.net wrote on sun 29 jan 2006 044754 gmt tbone tbonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote g neither of the usas big two are in so much trouble that they are being forced into chapter 11 . . . yet! . . . despite the fact that one of gms big pushes this year will be for its big suvs. and i just found this at least ford motor co. did in determining how best to introduce the redesigned 2007 ford expedition suv and the new supersize ford expedition el which will hit showrooms this fall. you can see fords spin here http//www.det.com/apps/pbcs.dll/articleaid=/20060129/auto01/601290341/1149/rss26 greg .

From : pooh bear

theguy wrote on tue 31 jan 2006 030822 +0000 pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote i suppose you reckon you can win an argument with a gun too ! yeah i imagine i could. why because it shows youre an ignorant fascist. graham .

From : huw

dori a schmetterling wrote in the usa that is... yes i know. huw .

From : bill putney

222 304562 1124508149.955807.31590@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com crb wrote what kind of gas mileage does it get mine gets 20 to 21 on the highway sometimes close to 21.5. in town it gets 18 to 19.5. jim .

From : bill putney

tbone wrote ...as far as ford and gm go they did dig their own hole by stuffing their heads as far up their collective asses as they possibly could... would it not be more correct to say ...their collective ass... im thinking a collective anything is singular. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : scott en aztln

on mon 30 jan 2006 185517 -0000 dori a schmetterling ng@nospam.co.uk wrote in general those who resort to abuse have no argument to advance. i agree. and top-posting is a particularly egregious method of abuse. -- what the heck ill play too. - dave .

From : theguy

on tue 31 jan 2006 030822 +0000 pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote theguy wrote on tue 31 jan 2006 010844 +0000 pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote tbone wrote and yet we managed to prevent all of europe from speaking german lol! you do talk some astonishing drivel. graham well we should listen to you on this one graham. i mean you seem to be an expert on drivel. are you and tbone both uneducated beer swilling trailer trash who reckon *america rules* lol. what an ignorant fuck you really are. just a fine example yourself. what a hoot you are pooh bear. lol. you sure sound like it. i suppose you reckon you can win an argument with a gun too ! yeah i imagine i could. why graham .

From : bill putney

pooh bear wrote tbone wrote and yet we managed to prevent all of europe from speaking german lol! you do talk some astonishing drivel. graham wow - you really dont remember the hitler thing do you. thats incredible. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : pooh bear

bill putney wrote pooh bear wrote tbone wrote and yet we managed to prevent all of europe from speaking german lol! you do talk some astonishing drivel. graham wow - you really dont remember the hitler thing do you. thats incredible. hitler never attempted to make german the only language in europe. graham .

From : roy

theguy wrote on tue 31 jan 2006 030822 +0000 pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote i suppose you reckon you can win an argument with a gun too ! yeah i imagine i could. why because it shows youre an ignorant fascist. no dip shit it shows he knows how to use a weapon. roy .

From : max dodge

which proves my point that it depends on who is doing the reporting now doesnt it you prefer fox do you yet another assumption on your part. i prefer to look at all points of view and decide where the reality lies given a dose of common sense. as i said echo in here or what what you call fact depends greatly on who reports the information. fine - stick with your gung-ho attitude and see where it gets you. its a damn bloody mess. first off i dont have a gung ho attitude. second i never said it was anything but a bloody mess. third i think its going better than many would like to believe and the reports on casualties support this. fourth its going better than even i had predicted although what i figured would happen is indeed happening even if on a shorter time line. fifth dont allow the pompous bullshit you spew delude you into believing that i an individual who thinks that as wars go this one is going very well actually agree with our presence in iraq. as a caveat i should say that the issue is quite a bit more complex than you seem to be able to comprehend. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max dodge wrote actually ive heard that plenty of us servicemen are totally pissed of with being in a country that doesnt even want them there - never mind the likelihood of being killed for their trouble. which proves my point that it depends on who is doing the reporting now doesnt it you prefer fox do you theres little difference in objective reporting *outside* the us. fine - stick with your gung-ho attitude and see where it gets you. its a damn bloody mess. graham .

From : pooh bear

max dodge wrote whats the efficiency of moving 100 tons of e.g. perishable goods by rail in such a manner that they are no longer usable by the time they make it to their destination none. however if its loaded on a an express train that crosses the nation at considerably higher speeds than are legal on the highway it will encounter little in the way of traffic jams or weather that stops travel. point of fact oysters from the chesapeake bay were once shipped to california arriving fresh in just days. surely if they could do that in the early 1900s railroads can do it now its astonishing how many things were dome in the past that ppl claim to be impossible now ! graham .

From : scott en aztln

on tue 31 jan 2006 012553 gmt tom lawrence tnloaswpraemnmcien5g@earthlink.net wrote unsnipped post below. nobody does this so after a while top posters are only replying to each other because all intelligent posters plonk them within a few posts. okay... i dont personally do it because i also like to edit out irrelevant parts. i just dont get my nuts in a vise over it and predict the downfall of human civilization when someone puts their comments at the top. who has done that i merely make use of the fact that repeat top-posters frequently do so out of arrogance - as if to say fuck you i dont have to obey any social conventions. people with this sort of attitude generally dont have anything valuable to contribute to a discussion. i figure i might as well use it as a leading indicator and plonk them right away saving valuable time. -- what the heck ill play too. - dave .

From : pooh bear

max dodge wrote i wrote.... us radars were almost non-existent in 1941. certainly no airborne ones and i dont think there were any operational naval ones either. as much as you would like to think we hadnt the technology you would be wrong. http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/radar be sure to click on the link for dr. dumont. that wasnt a practical operational system. ship detectors were demonstated also by the germans and the french prior to ww2. none were practical radars. graham .

From : scott en aztln

on mon 30 jan 2006 192152 -0500 bill putney bptn@kinez.net wrote go to your bookshelf and open up any book. is it written from top to bottom or bottom to top now take down another book - same thing take down a few more - my god are they all like that i dont care either way but that is certainly a poor argument. it would be a great argument if we were talking about reading books - but were not. replace books with papers magazines web pages and every other form of printed material known to man. they all follow the same conventions. those who choose to reject them run the risk of being rejected themselves. -- what the heck ill play too. - dave .

From : max dodge

and whens the last time youd heard of an express freight train there aint no such animal -- and if it were its efficiency would not be nearly as good as a regular freight train. union pacific runs them all the time as do any railroads that deal with manufacturing that requires the just in time method of supply. up specifically has designations for expedited intermodal perishables and extra unscheduled trains. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max dodge max340@verizon.net wrote whats the efficiency of moving 100 tons of e.g. perishable goods by rail in such a manner that they are no longer usable by the time they make it to their destination none. however if its loaded on a an express train that crosses the nation at considerably higher speeds than are legal on the highway it will encounter little in the way of traffic jams or weather that stops travel. and whens the last time youd heard of an express freight train there aint no such animal -- and if it were its efficiency would not be nearly as good as a regular freight train. -- theres no such thing as a free lunch but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. .

From : pooh bear

matthew russotto wrote pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote matthew russotto wrote max dodge max340@verizon.net wrote in short rail is far more efficient at moving freight and people than other modes of travel. whats the efficiency of moving 100 tons of e.g. perishable goods by rail in such a manner that they are no longer usable by the time they make it to their destination obviously you dont send *perishable goods* by a method thats unsuitable. right. which is why rails efficiency at energy used per ton-mile of goods is not the only appropriate measure and its not somehow incorrect as mr. min burn claimed to choose a method thats less efficient in kilowatt-hours per ton-mile. the method of transport best suitable for coal and iron ore is going to be different for that suitable for cut flowers. i dont understand why some ppl get into a mental straight-jacker imagining there must be a one size fits all solution. graham .

From : huw

max dodge wrote what ocean you dont seem to have a point. i said it needed very few replacement parts. those parts that were replaced didnt have to come over any oceans. all the important stuff kept working. it is a mechanical entity as such it will break and it will need repair. if it were here parts for it would cross the atlantic ocean. you might be more familiar with it if you looked west a bit farther than your nose. parts travel both ways. the parts for the us built x5 and mclass i owned were no different to german built models. parts for japanese built vehicles are no more expensive then british built japanese brands. transport cost is trivial from the us to europe and vise-versa. a container will contain many thousands of parts but will cost about $1500 to ship from store to store which is likely to be less than a dollar an item. in fact the manufacturer will charge a percentage for transport so that a filter will have maybe 10c transport while a $100 part will have maybe $2 added. can you not cope with the idea that a european car can run for 16 yrs/180000 mls and not even need many bits replaced if you had read my previous posts youd know im just fine with that bit of supposition on your part no matter how true it may or may not be. so you have doubts. hmm. huw .

From : huw

matthew russotto wrote pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote matthew russotto wrote max dodge max340@verizon.net wrote in short rail is far more efficient at moving freight and people than other modes of travel. whats the efficiency of moving 100 tons of e.g. perishable goods by rail in such a manner that they are no longer usable by the time they make it to their destination obviously you dont send *perishable goods* by a method thats unsuitable. right. which is why rails efficiency at energy used per ton-mile of goods is not the only appropriate measure and its not somehow incorrect as mr. min burn claimed to choose a method thats less efficient in kilowatt-hours per ton-mile. you are falling into the dodge set by maximus dodgeus in changing the subject from passengers to freight. there is no doubt that per ton mile the train is most efficient with heavy freight but you have to take into account the logistics at both ends and the timeliness. no you dont because we are taliking cars and passengers not freight. huw .

From : pooh bear

huw wrote pooh bear wrote huw wrote thom wrote actually the reason the us is so tough on cars is the fact that most people do not take care of their cars. they expect them to work all the time no matter how deficient their maintenance upkeep. and there were we readers of these forums being misled into thinking us cars had their oils changed every 3000 to 5000 miles while we europeans serviced our cars every 10000 to 15000 miles. lol theres a difference between modern synthetic oils and the dino-oil so popular in the us. in general 10000 to 12000 mile intervals do not need synthetic oil. it is true that most intervals longer than that do specify various grades of synthetic but every vehicle irrispective of change interval have a specified oil grade which they should use. ive heard it suggested that the popular 10-30 and 10-40 multigrades sold in europe are refined to a higher degree than in the us. nevertheless i prefer to use synthetics for oil change intervals of 10000 mi. also there seems to be more short journeys in the us which probably hammers the oil worse. graham .

From : pooh bear

huw wrote max dodge wrote your lack of understanding if repeated in corporate circles explains a lot about how gm and ford got where they are. if the train were efficient it would be utilised to a greater extent than is now the case. ergo it is not efficient therefore it is not utilised. wrong plonkmeister. you are still confusing cost effective with energy efficient. it cost less to ship by truck but a train is still more energy efficient. you have lost the passenger arguement and are attempting to change the topic to freight. good you just carry on. i must have missed this one. if rail is no less expensive that truck haulage for heavy commodities it begs the question why anyone uses it ! graham .

From : theguy

on tue 31 jan 2006 054349 +0000 pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote theguy wrote on tue 31 jan 2006 030822 +0000 pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote i suppose you reckon you can win an argument with a gun too ! yeah i imagine i could. why because it shows youre an ignorant fascist. graham really graham or i man pooh. it was your idea not mine. hmmm. .

From : theguy

on tue 31 jan 2006 130304 +0000 pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote bill putney wrote pooh bear wrote tbone wrote and yet we managed to prevent all of europe from speaking german lol! you do talk some astonishing drivel. graham wow - you really dont remember the hitler thing do you. thats incredible. hitler never attempted to make german the only language in europe. graham wow. how relevant. i mean pooh baby chalk one up for you. geez great point. wow what an incredible idiot. i am surprised that they let you use the computer at the home graham. .

From : pooh bear

theguy wrote on tue 31 jan 2006 130304 +0000 pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote bill putney wrote pooh bear wrote tbone wrote and yet we managed to prevent all of europe from speaking german lol! you do talk some astonishing drivel. graham wow - you really dont remember the hitler thing do you. thats incredible. hitler never attempted to make german the only language in europe. graham wow. how relevant. i mean pooh baby chalk one up for you. geez great point. wow what an incredible idiot. i am surprised that they let you use the computer at the home graham. bless you. you provide re-assurance should any be needed of the fabulously low intellect so prevalent in the usa. do you drag your knuckles too graham .

From : huw

rachel easson wrote half ton eh i dont think there are many pick-ups sold in europe with a payload of less than a ton but there you go. most of your pick-ups seem to carry not a lot more than fishing tackle. huw grunt grunt guffaw! now my nose is cleared bull shit! all your writing does not change the fact that 1/2 ton trucks are not common in europe and that 1 ton payloads are almost universal. the 1 ton trucks are very much smaller than yours though and are typified by the toyota hi-lux. huw .

From : huw

pooh bear wrote huw wrote thom wrote actually the reason the us is so tough on cars is the fact that most people do not take care of their cars. they expect them to work all the time no matter how deficient their maintenance upkeep. and there were we readers of these forums being misled into thinking us cars had their oils changed every 3000 to 5000 miles while we europeans serviced our cars every 10000 to 15000 miles. lol theres a difference between modern synthetic oils and the dino-oil so popular in the us. in general 10000 to 12000 mile intervals do not need synthetic oil. it is true that most intervals longer than that do specify various grades of synthetic but every vehicle irrispective of change interval have a specified oil grade which they should use. huw .

From : huw

clare at snyder.on.ca wrote on sun 29 jan 2006 173802 -0000 huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote max dodge wrote none of what you are saying makes much sense. evidence of this is your claim that youd buy fiat peugot and renault. great patronize your government by purchasing known inferior cars. none of those are british and none are actually inferior. gm has just had to pay a huge sum to fiat to get out of a contract it could not afford. have you any experience of those cars millions of satisfied customers run them and i have just bought my first fiat recently to go with my year old range rover and eight year old land cruiser. i am very satisfied with all of them. yes i have experienced fiat fix it again tony - rusted away in less than 4 years and the engine was shot in less than 2 - 1987 fiat 128 l sports coupe. also peugot - 1967 204 wagon. tough little piece of scrap - but not very dependable. to be fair it had a hard life zambia central africa. also renault. 1967 r12 - rallied it for 3 years and couldnt break it. nasty critter to work on but gave me a 432 finish in 3 years on the onnrc. yes cars of that period were less reliable than today and rotted. exhausts and batteries seldom lasted more than a year and new vehicle warranties were commonly six months only with no warranty for exhausts and stuff. things move on. my first car was a 8 year old morris 850 mini that had 196000 miles on it when i rescued it from the scrappy. had a vauxhall too - 1972 viva hc. another tough little car - needed a lot of minor attention but stood up well. my brother had a victor special 1962 and a viva ha 1964 nice cars but rather fragile and underpowered. he lso had a rover tc 2000 - a nice car to drive but a real mechanics nightmare. other brother had a sunbeam sedan for a short time. i owned an old fj45 land cruiser too - now that was a tough truck station wagonand several toyotas.corolla and tercel. they were the best of any vehicles ive owned - somewhere around 26 in number by now. i also drove a series 3 land rover swamper high clearance pickup for a while and a sunbeam alpine gt 1275. you have more experience than most here then. huw .

From : huw

max dodge wrote your lack of understanding if repeated in corporate circles explains a lot about how gm and ford got where they are. if the train were efficient it would be utilised to a greater extent than is now the case. ergo it is not efficient therefore it is not utilised. wrong plonkmeister. you are still confusing cost effective with energy efficient. it cost less to ship by truck but a train is still more energy efficient. you have lost the passenger arguement and are attempting to change the topic to freight. good you just carry on. huw .

From : huw

max dodge wrote http//www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/rr/261.pdf this document suggests that freight rail can move at up to 400 ton-miles per gallon. trucks and autos will never touch that level. ships will do much better. i stated somewhere that there were instances where trains were obviously more efficient and indeed they are used in those applications because that is what they are good for. carrying bulk products like coal and ore from production point to end point. http//www.atlintracoastal.org/wwfacts.htm about halfway down this page youll find a table noting emmissions from various freight hauling methods. notable is the fact that trucks are a distant third to trains and waterway transit. it is noteworthy that you have changed from comparing passenger carrying vehicles to heavy freight. you should note that i dont disagree with you that trains are efficient freight carriers as long as they load at the production point and unload at the processing point and the distance is long. huw .

From : huw

pooh bear wrote huw wrote matthew t. russotto wrote pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote comments4u wrote with job cuts announced on both sides of the atlantic its clear daimler-chrysler is serious about cutting the fat. even more it has announced plans for increased production at the currently hot chrysler unit without additional workers. that is truely cutting the fat. but observers wonder if daimler-chrysler has really identified all its fat. no. its about getting america off its lardy ass and competing at world standard productivity levels. why should america reduce its productivity levels quite correct. i dont think there is anything wrong with productivity levels which are as good as anywhere. fine. do nothing then ! i am not in a position to do anything but it seems to me that the problem is not one of productivity but one of cost and sales. the cost of pensions and logistics. the lack of desirable motors that people actually want to buy without disasterous discounts having to be applied. huw .

From : steve

huw wrote max dodge wrote even in the range rover they would cost only 440 or 110 each which is cheaper than the same four would travel by train. you are confusing personal cost with energy efficiency. until you figure out the difference you wont see the error of your thinking. further you seem to be more interested in insulting others rather than thinking about facts. the fact is that trains use more fuel per passenger mile than cars. this takes into account the amount of waste by trains moving rolling stock to where it is next needed. ill confess i havent seen an analysis of this in a number of years but the last time i did so rail proved to be the single most efficient form of transportation cargo or passenger on the planet. yes a fair amount of rolling stock has to be moved but a you dont have to expend fuel to hold the rolling stock in the air like you do with air transport b rolling friction is damn near as low as any system yet developed and c wind resistance is minimal smallest frontal area/cargo ratio of anything. where are you getting the claim that trains use more fuel per passenger mile than cars .

From : steve

max dodge wrote so if left for 10000 to 15000 miles as is normal in europe they would not survive mine survive just fine. i have three cars over 100k two over 200k. ive got 4 over 200k and one over 400k. american cars chrysler products. the one with over 400k did a big chunk of that with plain old dinosaur oil and it sure wasnt changed every 3k. i didnt run them to 9k and up until after converting them to synthetic more like 5k-6k on dino oil. back when i logged a minimum of 25k miles/year it just wasnt practical to change oil every 3k. that would have meant changing oil every 6 weeks! .

From : pooh bear

steve wrote huw wrote max dodge wrote even in the range rover they would cost only 440 or 110 each which is cheaper than the same four would travel by train. you are confusing personal cost with energy efficiency. until you figure out the difference you wont see the error of your thinking. further you seem to be more interested in insulting others rather than thinking about facts. the fact is that trains use more fuel per passenger mile than cars. this takes into account the amount of waste by trains moving rolling stock to where it is next needed. ill confess i havent seen an analysis of this in a number of years but the last time i did so rail proved to be the single most efficient form of transportation cargo or passenger on the planet. yes a fair amount of rolling stock has to be moved but a you dont have to expend fuel to hold the rolling stock in the air like you do with air transport b rolling friction is damn near as low as any system yet developed and c wind resistance is minimal smallest frontal area/cargo ratio of anything. where are you getting the claim that trains use more fuel per passenger mile than cars thin air most likely. graham .

From : dori a schmetterling

just curious what exactly is a top-poster abusing das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- on mon 30 jan 2006 185517 -0000 dori a schmetterling ... i agree. and top-posting is a particularly egregious method of abuse. -- what the heck ill play too. - dave .

From : rachel easson

rachel easson wrote half ton eh i dont think there are many pick-ups sold in europe with a payload of less than a ton but there you go. most of your pick-ups seem to carry not a lot more than fishing tackle. huw grunt grunt guffaw! now my nose is cleared bull shit! all your writing does not change the fact that 1/2 ton trucks are not common in europe and that 1 ton payloads are almost universal. the 1 ton trucks are very much smaller than yours though and are typified by the toyota hi-lux. huw i misunderstood huw. i thought the point you were making was that little trucks are not common in europe but in north america 1/2 tons are very common but typically only carry fishing tackle. i was explaining that 1/2 ton truck owners here use their trucks to work. and most of us need an 8 box rach .

From : rachel easson

ive heard it suggested that the popular 10-30 and 10-40 multigrades sold in europe are refined to a higher degree than in the us. nevertheless i prefer to use synthetics for oil change intervals of 10000 mi. also there seems to be more short journeys in the us which probably hammers the oil worse. yes good point -- probably another reason why the cheapest oil will do in an old block 80s as long as you change it every 3-5000 mi when you are travelling dirt roads or breathing in construction dirt -- i think i have an extra 6 gallons of oil and oil fiters rach .

From : tim

on sun 29 jan 2006 085940 +0000 comments4u wrote but there is always opportunity. with the added weight lee iacocca may be tagging chrysler dodge and jeep commercials with built like a mercedes. of course if that turns out to be true chrysler financial will soon be in the business of offering car equity loans for the repair bills. sheesh i hope they *dont* build anything like mercedes. ive had experience with several mercs and some of the engineering is quite honestly.....bizarre.....for lack of a better term. god help you if you ever get into trouble on the road with one.... .

From : clare at snyder on ca

on sun 29 jan 2006 151620 -0600 dtj none@nowhere.com wrote on sun 29 jan 2006 185409 -0000 huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote the most densly populated nations tend to be the most prosperous and china cite every country which is more densely populated than the us has a far lower standard of living. has the potential of being more prosperous than the usa. i think you will potential they have the potential to get their asses kicked if they keep supporting terrorists. ************************* dave boy - someone needs to go to haiti or burkina faso. quite densely populated compared to the usa canada europe or even south africa and 2 of the 5 poorest countries in the world. .

From : clare at snyder on ca

so why arent european car companies in trouble like gm and ford then theres no merit in working long weeks for the hell of it btw. most american have a false idea of reality here anyway. graham because they have already gone through that cycle. and / or they will go through it again. in the late fifties the american companies almost collapsed due to labour problems. in the uk that happened in the sixties/seventies. dont for one minute think the eu is immune to the problems american companies have gotten into. .

From : theguy

on tue 31 jan 2006 160539 +0000 pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote theguy wrote on tue 31 jan 2006 130304 +0000 pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote bill putney wrote pooh bear wrote tbone wrote and yet we managed to prevent all of europe from speaking german lol! you do talk some astonishing drivel. graham wow - you really dont remember the hitler thing do you. thats incredible. hitler never attempted to make german the only language in europe. graham wow. how relevant. i mean pooh baby chalk one up for you. geez great point. wow what an incredible idiot. i am surprised that they let you use the computer at the home graham. bless you. you provide re-assurance should any be needed of the fabulously low intellect so prevalent in the usa. do you drag your knuckles too graham glad to be of help pooh bear. you have also been a fine example on your own part. you have shown once again what how prissy arrogant and obnoxious your kind can be. .

From : dtj

on tue 31 jan 2006 062031 -0500 bill putney bptn@kinez.net wrote pooh bear wrote tbone wrote and yet we managed to prevent all of europe from speaking german lol! you do talk some astonishing drivel. graham wow - you really dont remember the hitler thing do you. thats incredible. not many five year olds do. ************************* dave .

From : tbone

scott en aztln wrote on sun 29 jan 2006 101737 -0500 roy roy@home.net wrote no its about getting america to get off its lard butt and take back its industry but that would mean unions taking wage cuts and the epa being told to shut up and suck on a pine tree. how about we cut your pension or however you get paid. im so sick of hearing cut the employees wages as part of the cure all end all. who the hell here can afford a pay cut which would you rather have your pay cut or your job cut a lot of ford and gm workers are about to wish they had taken the pay cut... or maybe even a reduction in benefits those benefits are no good if youre no longer entitled to them ! i would say that most american workers would not be as objectionable to pay cuts or reductions in benefits if they were applied across the board. the problem is that while the workers are constantly asked to give back management continues at its current pay and benefits and in many cases gives themselves a bonus for the cost savings made by the workers below them. it seems to me like american auto workers reckon they deserve to be immune to changes in the the economy. anyone with views that wacky deserves to lose their job. once again you show a significant lack of intelligence or compassion. i guess thats a british thing. the workers in most cases dont expect immunity only equal treatment. the problem is that management are the ones that give themselves the immunity. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

tbone wrote tbone wrote there is no way to compete fairly with countries that pay their workers next to nothing its not the *countries* that pay those workers its the factories that employ them. often owned by american companies. americans love low labour costs for cheap imports but only when it doesnt threaten their own jobs. oh. and the european countries are immune to this lol! youre trying to dodge the issue by changing it doesnt fool me. really you do seem easily fooled. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

max dodge wrote and yet we managed to prevent all of europe from speaking german lol! excellent point. im always fascinated by the way people from outside the u.s. criticize our actions. frankly half of us disagree with any given military action. fortunately when most of the u.s. was opposed to going to war in 1940 we decided to enter the european theatre regardless. this saved england from invasion and lead to the liberation of france. you actually only entered the war when it became obvious that the usa would have to deal with a power greater than itself if britain fell. the penny didnt drop in the pacific until most of the fleet had been sunk at pearl harbour. most of the fleet lol. while the damage was greater than we expected it was hardly most of anything and prior to that we were shipping tons of military supplies to gb prior to pearl. why do you think that was -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

tbone wrote lol what makes you think they are not. some of the countries are poor and cannot afford subsidies for their core export manufacturers. perhaps subsidies is the wrong word but even in these poor countries they do divert resources and ignore rules to lower costs far below anything that we could do. some do subsidise somewhat. an example is the usa some 18 months ago which subsidised their steel industry against perfectly legitimate unsubsidised imports from elsewhere. read above. the us steel industry was/is inefficient but was pretected by import restrictions. this is no longer needed because the price of steel has risen drastically but at the time and when it suited the us it effectively protected its industry. it is not always a matter of efficiency. sometimes it is a matter of following some requirements in some societies like worker safety that other countries are willing to ignore. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

tbone wrote ...as far as ford and gm go they did dig their own hole by stuffing their heads as far up their collective asses as they possibly could... would it not be more correct to say ...their collective ass... im thinking a collective anything is singular. not at all. i was referring to the collective ass of the managers running each company. two companies two collective asses but thanks for caring. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

that wasnt a practical operational system. ship detectors were demonstated also by the germans and the french prior to ww2. none were practical radars. nor were english ideas on radar practical until the u.s. put their scientists in the same location as the english scientists. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max dodge wrote i wrote.... us radars were almost non-existent in 1941. certainly no airborne ones and i dont think there were any operational naval ones either. as much as you would like to think we hadnt the technology you would be wrong. http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/radar be sure to click on the link for dr. dumont. that wasnt a practical operational system. ship detectors were demonstated also by the germans and the french prior to ww2. none were practical radars. graham .

From : max dodge

because it shows youre an ignorant fascist. funy i thought it showed he had good aim. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author theguy wrote on tue 31 jan 2006 030822 +0000 pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote i suppose you reckon you can win an argument with a gun too ! yeah i imagine i could. why because it shows youre an ignorant fascist. graham .

From : tbone

bill putney wrote pooh bear wrote tbone wrote and yet we managed to prevent all of europe from speaking german lol! you do talk some astonishing drivel. graham wow - you really dont remember the hitler thing do you. thats incredible. hitler never attempted to make german the only language in europe. how do you know -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : max dodge

max dodge wrote and yet we managed to prevent all of europe from speaking german lol! excellent point. im always fascinated by the way people from outside the u.s. criticize our actions. frankly half of us disagree with any given military action. fortunately when most of the u.s. was opposed to going to war in 1940 we decided to enter the european theatre regardless. no you didnt ! you waited til japan bombed pearl harbor over 2 years after the start of ww2. us forces didnt arrive *in the uk* until 1942. wrong!! how do you think you got the supplies from us that kept your country alive until we entered the war. entering a theatre does not mean declaring war. this saved england from invasion england was saved from invasion by the battle of britain in which the us played not one single jot. lol you are kidding right. without our help you would not have survived. and lead to the liberation of france. france was liberated by *allied* forces. not just the us. aside from the obvious brits and yanks there were canadians free french poles australians new zealanders indians czechs and many others. who said that it was just the us the point is that if we didnt get involved by provoking the japanese to attack and our help and industrial might helped to turn the war around. yet they seem to know better than we how our military works. youre a lying sack of shit. i find it funny that you would call anyone a lying sack of shit there poo bear. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : pooh bear

max dodge wrote then they assume that the motorcoach would have passengers both ways. cant do that if you wont do it for the railway. both of them have periods of time when they will be less than full. not to mention that some railways run at times with carriages 100% full ! graham .

From : huw

hell if you must bullshit might as well get 2006 figures if youre going to call it the latest figures. you wanted facts. you got them. either you post more up to date facts or stick with your fairy stories. one day you might get good at it. huw .

From : huw

i hope you think interesting thoughts to entertain yourself huwie... as i have quite a nice car and drive very little 5k mi p.a. tops i sometimes look forward to a longer trip e.g. to manchester or to the continent. however after about two hours the pleasure fades... same here. although i do not dislike driving like you about two hours is as much as i would like to limit myself per day. also a different car is nice now and again. im lucky in that respect. i have just returned from an 85 mile journey with the panda and broke 90mpg overall. i wasnt even trying for the first half where i noticed the average tantalisingly close to 70 mpg so on the return journey i went all out for economy and actually averaged 90mpg and rising as i arrived home. huw .

From : steve

pooh bear wrote steve wrote a friend of mine travelled by amtrak last year and told me that they were 20 hours late arriving on the way to their destination but only 18 hours late on the return trip -/ how on earth can you run a railway like that a question people have been asking for a long time.... -/ amtrak is a running late-night talk show monologue joke. .

From : steve

floyd rogers wrote listen if you dont believe the numbers find your own and cite them or stfu. geesh. loosen your jockstrap floyd. its cutting circulation to your brain. .

From : steve

huw wrote steve no@spam.thanks wrote dori a schmetterling wrote how is that relevant to nub of the argument so far the best guesses we have for annual mileages in na and uk ae@ uk - 12 000 miles us/ca - 12 000 possibly 15 000 miles. i seriously doubt those us numbers. maybe if that is an average for all citizens including the vast number in new york chicago boston and san francisco that dont even own cars... but i dont know. it just feels wrong based on the fact that my annual mileage is between 20k and 25k and i have what is considered a rather short commute. listen if you dont believe the numbers find your own and cite them or stfu. here are the figures for the usa which actually shows only 11400 miles per car overall with midwestern states actually posting lower mileage at 10700 miles which goes very much against what has been implied by some posters here particularly steve and clare from canada. actually id expect small-town heartlanders of the midwest and southwest to have the among the lowest mileage figures and the most relaxed lifestyles. the high mileage would be suburbanites that commute to cities. again i dont have a dog in the fight its just that the numbers quoted feel awfully wrong given that every city i travel to has traffic reports in the morning and evening that show a lot of cars travelling a lot of miles to and from the burbs. .

From : richard sexton

dori a schmetterling ng@nospam.co.uk wrote not in this group... they all seem to live in the middle of nowhere have multi-car garages and drive 100 miles to get a paper...and are proud of it... well thats right. we arent the ones wasting hours a day on a commute. -- need mercedes parts - http//parts.mbz.org richard sexton | mercedes stuff http//mbz.org 1970 280se 72 280se | home page http//rs79.vrx.net 633csi 250se/c 300sd | http//aquaria.net http//killi.net .

From : huw

richard sexton richard@.vrx.net wrote well i might be if i was in the us. what part of england did you lived in boyo - a part of the uk that can communicate using correct english. ;- huw .

From : dori a schmetterling

oh i have been on those... standing room only and i dont mean on an urban underground. das -- for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- ... not to mention that some railways run at times with carriages 100% full ! graham .

From : huw

huw wrote steve no@spam.thanks wrote dori a schmetterling wrote how is that relevant to nub of the argument so far the best guesses we have for annual mileages in na and uk ae@ uk - 12 000 miles us/ca - 12 000 possibly 15 000 miles. i seriously doubt those us numbers. maybe if that is an average for all citizens including the vast number in new york chicago boston and san francisco that dont even own cars... but i dont know. it just feels wrong based on the fact that my annual mileage is between 20k and 25k and i have what is considered a rather short commute. listen if you dont believe the numbers find your own and cite them or stfu. here are the figures for the usa which actually shows only 11400 miles per car overall with midwestern states actually posting lower mileage at 10700 miles which goes very much against what has been implied by some posters here particularly steve and clare from canada. actually id expect small-town heartlanders of the midwest and southwest to have the among the lowest mileage figures and the most relaxed lifestyles. the high mileage would be suburbanites that commute to cities. again i dont have a dog in the fight its just that the numbers quoted feel awfully wrong given that every city i travel to has traffic reports in the morning and evening that show a lot of cars travelling a lot of miles to and from the burbs. all the figures are available broken down per region and every which way you like. just follow the links i provided. either get yourself a dog or leave the ring before you get bitten deep on your ass ;- huw .

From : huw

dori a schmetterling ng@nospam.co.uk wrote not in this group... they all seem to live in the middle of nowhere have multi-car garages and drive 100 miles to get a paper...and are proud of it... well thats right. we arent the ones wasting hours a day on a commute. us official figures show that you are not representative of the average but are indeed included in it. huw .

From : theguy

on fri 10 feb 2006 032516 +0000 pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote theguy wrote on fri 10 feb 2006 022904 +0000 pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote theguy wrote i mean have we not had enough reminders of how totally fucking boring our friends in the uk are just think yourselves lucky that the us still has any friends. yeah graham poohy well just think that. yeah we sure will. i guess you could revert to splendid isolationism of course. did they teach you about that at your hick school no we were too busy totin our guns around larnin the three rs and drinkin beer. btw. check out who owns your foreign bases before dissing your friends as you call us. graham .

From : dori a schmetterling

reminds me of an anecdote not ot since so many posts here are anecdotes... about my first paid job a holiday job just after school. it was in the suburbs of cardiff in wales for those not in the know and my digs were somewhere there too. the first letter my non-british parents sent me from the continent was addressed to me at cardiff england... and i got a long lecture from my landlady and her husband... das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- ... well i might be if i was in the us. what part of england did you lived in boyo - -- need mercedes parts - http//parts.mbz.org richard sexton | mercedes stuff http//mbz.org 1970 280se 72 280se | home page http//rs79.vrx.net 633csi 250se/c 300sd | http//aquaria.net http//killi.net .

From : steve

huw wrote all the figures are available broken down per region and every which way you like. just follow the links i provided. either get yourself a dog or leave the ring before you get bitten deep on your ass ;- well youre certainly right that theres a lot of ass-biting going on but it aint the dogs that are doing the biting. well i am waiting for evidence that shows that official us figures are wrong and that you and clare know best. if youd go back and read i never claimed that i know best and i sure as hell dont speak for clare. i just said it doesnt feel like the right number. im perfectly well aware that intuition isnt a mathematical basis for anything so stop trying to pick a fight where there isnt one. whether the real national average per driver is 12 miles a year or 120000 miles a year doesnt change my life one iota either way. .

From : max dodge

not in this group... they all seem to live in the middle of nowhere have multi-car garages and drive 100 miles to get a paper...and are proud of it... given that most of us posting in this crossposted nightmare from the aadt ng actually drive the dodge trucks in the name of the ng it would also be safe to assume that we dont live in urban centers where a truck would be less needed. as for me i live in a small town and work on heavy mechanical pieces mostly dirty ones at that. on top of that i tow a car trailer. travel to any major city is an hour at least over two in most cases. i drive five hours to my other home and at times carry furniture. a small car simply wouldnt do what i need it to do. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author not in this group... they all seem to live in the middle of nowhere have multi-car garages and drive 100 miles to get a paper...and are proud of it... ;- das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- ... i would expect those in the us living out in the wilds to have higher figures but statistically they are presumably a small insignificant minority. graham .

From : huw

not in this group... they all seem to live in the middle of nowhere have multi-car garages and drive 100 miles to get a paper...and are proud of it... given that most of us posting in this crossposted nightmare from the aadt ng actually drive the dodge trucks in the name of the ng it would also be safe to assume that we dont live in urban centers where a truck would be less needed. as for me i live in a small town and work on heavy mechanical pieces mostly dirty ones at that. on top of that i tow a car trailer. travel to any major city is an hour at least over two in most cases. i drive five hours to my other home and at times carry furniture. a small car simply wouldnt do what i need it to do. given your esteemed leaders new commitment to drastically reduce dependency on arab oil over the medium term and the ever higher price of said oil in the short medium and longer term then perhaps your should be prepared for drastic downsizing whether you like it or not. otherwise learn to enjoy bending over and being shafted by the middle east on a regular if not continuous basis. huw .

From : huw

btw all calculations of this type are based on assumptions. these is what the basic parameters of any calculation are known as. false. it is well known how much work can be done with a specific amount of fuel when applied a specific way. as such one can calculate how many miles a ton of goods or a person can be moved using various methods. this is not rocket science nor is it theory assumption or guesswork. one would hope that the assumptions are based on reasonable averages. one would hope that assumptions wouldnt need to be used given concrete knowledge and years of testing and engineering. the figures stand up on their own merit. if you have a particular problem with any aspect please feel free to highlight it by reference and copying and pasting it here so it can be analysed. otherwise your protestations are only so much hot air. huw .

From : max dodge

im sure the best available facts arent five years old nor are they as vague as some on here seem to use. as to digging them up ive posted links to info proving my point. that huw likes his vague assumptions is not my problem. it does however lead to an opportunity to be amused at his cost. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author you dig em out if you disagree with the best facts available so far. as i said elsewhere personal anecdotes may be interesting but they are useless for arriving at general conclusions. das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- hell if you must bullshit might as well get 2006 figures if youre going to call it the latest figures. ... .

From : steve

max dodge wrote im sure the best available facts arent five years old nor are they as vague as some on here seem to use. oh no. those numbers are on the *web*. theyre a valid citation and your criticisms of them are not acknowledgeable. how dare you you unwashed american who probably drives a gasp pickup truck! and probably a dodge too! after all nothing anyone finds with a search engine could ever possibly be based on flawed statistics or be outdated... scuse me while i jackhammer my tongue out of my cheek.... .

From : steve

huw wrote again i dont have a dog in the fight its just that the numbers quoted feel awfully wrong given that every city i travel to has traffic reports in the morning and evening that show a lot of cars travelling a lot of miles to and from the burbs. all the figures are available broken down per region and every which way you like. just follow the links i provided. either get yourself a dog or leave the ring before you get bitten deep on your ass ;- well youre certainly right that theres a lot of ass-biting going on but it aint the dogs that are doing the biting. .

From : richard sexton

huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote dori a schmetterling ng@nospam.co.uk wrote not in this group... they all seem to live in the middle of nowhere have multi-car garages and drive 100 miles to get a paper...and are proud of it... well thats right. we arent the ones wasting hours a day on a commute. us official figures show that you are not representative of the average but are indeed included in it. well i might be if i was in the us. what part of england did you lived in boyo - -- need mercedes parts - http//parts.mbz.org richard sexton | mercedes stuff http//mbz.org 1970 280se 72 280se | home page http//rs79.vrx.net 633csi 250se/c 300sd | http//aquaria.net http//killi.net .

From : huw

huw wrote again i dont have a dog in the fight its just that the numbers quoted feel awfully wrong given that every city i travel to has traffic reports in the morning and evening that show a lot of cars travelling a lot of miles to and from the burbs. all the figures are available broken down per region and every which way you like. just follow the links i provided. either get yourself a dog or leave the ring before you get bitten deep on your ass ;- well youre certainly right that theres a lot of ass-biting going on but it aint the dogs that are doing the biting. well i am waiting for evidence that shows that official us figures are wrong and that you and clare know best. i suspect it will be a long wait like until the first snowy day in july. huw .

From : steve

huw wrote not in this group... they all seem to live in the middle of nowhere have multi-car garages and drive 100 miles to get a paper...and are proud of it... given that most of us posting in this crossposted nightmare from the aadt ng actually drive the dodge trucks in the name of the ng it would also be safe to assume that we dont live in urban centers where a truck would be less needed. as for me i live in a small town and work on heavy mechanical pieces mostly dirty ones at that. on top of that i tow a car trailer. travel to any major city is an hour at least over two in most cases. i drive five hours to my other home and at times carry furniture. a small car simply wouldnt do what i need it to do. given your esteemed leaders new commitment to drastically reduce dependency on arab oil over the medium term and the ever higher price of said oil in the short medium and longer term then perhaps your should be prepared for drastic downsizing whether you like it or not. otherwise learn to enjoy bending over and being shafted by the middle east on a regular if not continuous basis. he just said that he hauls tractors and cars on trailers. downsizing for people that actually *use* big pickups for what theyre designed for simply isnt an option. fortunately the market is full of cheap used ones from all the urbanites that used them as status symbols in recent years - what really strikes me as boneheaded is that toyota just announced a humongous replacement for their tundra truck. just at the moment the market is shrinking back to the people whove always needed trucks and are highly unlikely to buy a toyota given that features like this would cost them income not just loss of stylish transportation http//forums.thecarlounge.net/zerothreadid=2438359 .

From : huw

im sure the best available facts arent five years old nor are they as vague as some on here seem to use. as to digging them up ive posted links to info proving my point. that huw likes his vague assumptions is not my problem. it does however lead to an opportunity to be amused at his cost. stop squirming it is embarrassing to those that read your posts. i am the only one who has provided proof here with links to us doe information. if you have alternative proof which has the same gavitas and is more up-to-date then this is your opportunity to provide it. please dont be shy. please dont be long. hot air buster and fairy stories as you attempt above just fools no-one. huw .

From : max dodge

unfortunately you lack the basic knowledge to be able to comprehend exactly why you are wrong. simply doing the math will get you the reasons why rail travel is more efficient. of course you would have to know the math to run the equations. i posted links last week sometime whether or not you chose to look at them is unknown to me. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author hell if you must bullshit might as well get 2006 figures if youre going to call it the latest figures. you wanted facts. you got them. either you post more up to date facts or stick with your fairy stories. one day you might get good at it. huw .

From : huw

max dodge wrote im sure the best available facts arent five years old nor are they as vague as some on here seem to use. oh no. those numbers are on the *web*. theyre a valid citation and your criticisms of them are not acknowledgeable. how dare you you unwashed american who probably drives a gasp pickup truck! and probably a dodge too! after all nothing anyone finds with a search engine could ever possibly be based on flawed statistics or be outdated... scuse me while i jackhammer my tongue out of my cheek.... they are official us government department figures not imagined figures from some usenet windbag who revels in the size of his tool. if you wish to say that they are mistaken or false then please do prove it. carry on. huw .

From : dori a schmetterling

pat on back das -- for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- ... i have just returned from an 85 mile journey with the panda and broke 90mpg overall. i wasnt even trying for the first half where i noticed the average tantalisingly close to 70 mpg so on the return journey i went all out for economy and actually averaged 90mpg and rising as i arrived home. huw .

From : richard sexton

huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote richard sexton richard@.vrx.net wrote well i might be if i was in the us. what part of england did you lived in boyo - a part of the uk that can communicate using correct english. ;- oh south wales. -- need mercedes parts - http//parts.mbz.org richard sexton | mercedes stuff http//mbz.org 1970 280se 72 280se | home page http//rs79.vrx.net 633csi 250se/c 300sd | http//aquaria.net http//killi.net .

From : richard sexton

dori a schmetterling ng@nospam.co.uk wrote reminds me of an anecdote not ot since so many posts here are anecdotes... about my first paid job a holiday job just after school. it was in the suburbs of cardiff in wales for those not in the know and my digs were somewhere there too. the first letter my non-british parents sent me from the continent was addressed to me at cardiff england... and i got a long lecture from my landlady and her husband... uh yeah. about that. im surprised you got off that easy - -- need mercedes parts - http//parts.mbz.org richard sexton | mercedes stuff http//mbz.org 1970 280se 72 280se | home page http//rs79.vrx.net 633csi 250se/c 300sd | http//aquaria.net http//killi.net .

From : max dodge

btw all calculations of this type are based on assumptions. these is what the basic parameters of any calculation are known as. false. it is well known how much work can be done with a specific amount of fuel when applied a specific way. as such one can calculate how many miles a ton of goods or a person can be moved using various methods. this is not rocket science nor is it theory assumption or guesswork. one would hope that the assumptions are based on reasonable averages. one would hope that assumptions wouldnt need to be used given concrete knowledge and years of testing and engineering. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author btw all calculations of this type are based on assumptions. these is what the basic parameters of any calculation are known as. one would hope that the assumptions are based on reasonable averages. das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- ... first they make an assumption. big fat no no if yuo want accurate data. then they assume that the motorcoach would have passengers both ways. cant do that if you wont do it for the railway. both of them have periods of time when they will be less than full. .. .

From : huw

huw wrote not in this group... they all seem to live in the middle of nowhere have multi-car garages and drive 100 miles to get a paper...and are proud of it... given that most of us posting in this crossposted nightmare from the aadt ng actually drive the dodge trucks in the name of the ng it would also be safe to assume that we dont live in urban centers where a truck would be less needed. as for me i live in a small town and work on heavy mechanical pieces mostly dirty ones at that. on top of that i tow a car trailer. travel to any major city is an hour at least over two in most cases. i drive five hours to my other home and at times carry furniture. a small car simply wouldnt do what i need it to do. given your esteemed leaders new commitment to drastically reduce dependency on arab oil over the medium term and the ever higher price of said oil in the short medium and longer term then perhaps your should be prepared for drastic downsizing whether you like it or not. otherwise learn to enjoy bending over and being shafted by the middle east on a regular if not continuous basis. he just said that he hauls tractors and cars on trailers. downsizing for people that actually *use* big pickups for what theyre designed for simply isnt an option. fortunately the market is full of cheap used ones from all the urbanites that used them as status symbols in recent years - while business use may be justified the rest of the world has no problem using much more efficient vehicles. to say you have no alternative is to submit to a long term shafting. there is a choice. fairly soon i suspect things will get distinctly uncomfortable. what really strikes me as boneheaded is that toyota just announced a humongous replacement for their tundra truck. just at the moment the market is shrinking back to the people whove always needed trucks and are highly unlikely to buy a toyota given that features like this would cost them income not just loss of stylish transportation http//forums.thecarlounge.net/zerothreadid=2438359 planning for these things is long term and it would be prudent if you started planning for your leaders aim to come true. it could be fairly painless as your energy use is so profligate compared to the rest of the world that quite substantial cuts in percentage terms should be easy and you would still be comparatively profligate energy users. huw .

From : dori a schmetterling

thing is we dont know the data for every single car in an area unless e.g. its a street and we have asked every owner in the street so we take averages which are assumptions for the purposes of a calculation. similarly in market surveys only a few hundred or a thousand people are asked. the assumption is that the sample chosen reflects a region or country. the assumption may be reasonable tested many times but it is still an assumption. an assumption does not have to mean a random number plucked from the air or fished from the bottom of someones gut. das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- ... false. it is well known how much work can be done with a specific amount of fuel when applied a specific way. as such one can calculate how many miles a ton of goods or a person can be moved using various methods. this is not rocket science nor is it theory assumption or guesswork. ... one would hope that assumptions wouldnt need to be used given concrete knowledge and years of testing and engineering. -- max ... .

From : matthew t russotto

huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote you think only the us have more than 1 vehicle per houshold you know i can easily get the figures for you if you insist. here we are. in the uk 25% of all housholds have two cars and a further 5% have three or more. that is over 30% of all housholds with two cars or more while 26% have no cars at all. i suspect that the greater number of 0 car housholds are in cities where there is no room to park. in the us the average is close to 2 cars per household. for a while i was in a household with 5 all driven regularly .

From : huw

huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote you think only the us have more than 1 vehicle per houshold you know i can easily get the figures for you if you insist. here we are. in the uk 25% of all housholds have two cars and a further 5% have three or more. that is over 30% of all housholds with two cars or more while 26% have no cars at all. i suspect that the greater number of 0 car housholds are in cities where there is no room to park. in the us the average is close to 2 cars per household. for a while i was in a household with 5 all driven regularly yes those figures are included in those doe tables but if you look carefully you will find that they only refer to households that actually have a car. on that basis the uk has nearly half of all households that have a car with two cars or more. still less than the us. if you look at all the references i provided it is all there. since you must bring up how many cars were in your household as if in a pissing contest then i should say that i presently have a range rover land cruiser nissan terrano fiat panda isuzu trooper and a land rover outside. hmm thats six five of which are suvs not counting the commercial vehicles connected with my various business away from home. these have only four drivers presently. huw .

From : matthew t russotto

huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote you think only the us have more than 1 vehicle per houshold you know i can easily get the figures for you if you insist. here we are. in the uk 25% of all housholds have two cars and a further 5% have three or more. that is over 30% of all housholds with two cars or more while 26% have no cars at all. i suspect that the greater number of 0 car housholds are in cities where there is no room to park. in the us the average is close to 2 cars per household. for a while i was in a household with 5 all driven regularly yes those figures are included in those doe tables but if you look carefully you will find that they only refer to households that actually have a car. the most recent figures i can find show about 1.7 cars per household for the us if you assume that all households with 3 or more vehicles only have 3. on that basis the uk has nearly half of all households that have a car with two cars or more. still less than the us. if you look at all the references i provided it is all there. same figures show 63% of households with cars in the us have two or more. .

From : huw

unfortunately you lack the basic knowledge to be able to comprehend exactly why you are wrong. simply doing the math will get you the reasons why rail travel is more efficient. of course you would have to know the math to run the equations. i posted links last week sometime whether or not you chose to look at them is unknown to me. changing the subject fools no-one but yourself. your continued fairy stories are less convincing with practice. if you have can show either the us doe to be mistaken or the figures for railways compared to road vehicles provided by me to be substantially mistaken then please do so in the appropriate place. this particular thread of the conversation is about average road miles per car in case you hadnt noticed. further bluster only serves to dig you a deeper hole. huw .

From : huw

thing is we dont know the data for every single car in an area unless e.g. its a street and we have asked every owner in the street so we take averages which are assumptions for the purposes of a calculation. similarly in market surveys only a few hundred or a thousand people are asked. the assumption is that the sample chosen reflects a region or country. the assumption may be reasonable tested many times but it is still an assumption. an assumption does not have to mean a random number plucked from the air or fished from the bottom of someones gut. the figures are so overwhelmingly in favour of road transport that even if there was a significant error in favour of road the road transport and argument for closing the railways would still be overwhelming and compelling. government hasnt got the balls to do it though. they prefer to tax road transport to burn it on rail. the bus is just so much more efficient than the train there is no possible argument. i have one perfectly comfortable car that averages 70mpg and will exceed 90mpg when trying. running this with only one driver is more fuel efficient than a train let alone having between two and four people in it. the facts are plain for all but the terminally blinkered and donkey stupid. huw .

From : huw

huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote you think only the us have more than 1 vehicle per houshold you know i can easily get the figures for you if you insist. here we are. in the uk 25% of all housholds have two cars and a further 5% have three or more. that is over 30% of all housholds with two cars or more while 26% have no cars at all. i suspect that the greater number of 0 car housholds are in cities where there is no room to park. in the us the average is close to 2 cars per household. for a while i was in a household with 5 all driven regularly yes those figures are included in those doe tables but if you look carefully you will find that they only refer to households that actually have a car. the most recent figures i can find show about 1.7 cars per household for the us if you assume that all households with 3 or more vehicles only have 3. i thought i saw a higher figure in the statistics somewhere but i wont argue with that. on that basis the uk has nearly half of all households that have a car with two cars or more. still less than the us. if you look at all the references i provided it is all there. same figures show 63% of households with cars in the us have two or more. so the uk is not very far behind. i suspect the uk and europe has been catching up from a historically much lower number. huw .

From : clare at snyder on ca

on fri 10 feb 2006 175349 -0000 huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote huw wrote again i dont have a dog in the fight its just that the numbers quoted feel awfully wrong given that every city i travel to has traffic reports in the morning and evening that show a lot of cars travelling a lot of miles to and from the burbs. all the figures are available broken down per region and every which way you like. just follow the links i provided. either get yourself a dog or leave the ring before you get bitten deep on your ass ;- well youre certainly right that theres a lot of ass-biting going on but it aint the dogs that are doing the biting. well i am waiting for evidence that shows that official us figures are wrong and that you and clare know best. i suspect it will be a long wait like until the first snowy day in july. huw depending where you are in canada that might not be too long from any given day. iirc calgary had snow last summer. .

From : clare at snyder on ca

on fri 10 feb 2006 101247 -0000 huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote on fri 10 feb 2006 002616 -0000 huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote here are the figures for the usa which actually shows only 11400 miles per car overall with midwestern states actually posting lower mileage at 10700 miles which goes very much against what has been implied by some posters here particularly steve and clare from canada. of course canada might be at variance but i doubt it. i have always assumed that mileage would not vary greatly from one country to another because it is primarily governed by the amount of *time* people feel comfortable devoting to what is essentially a waste of time. here is a reference to a comprehensive and authoritative source http//www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/rtecs/chapter3.html huw only one problen huw - your comprehensive and authorative source is 12 years out of date. in that 12 years many farmers have had to resort to working off farm to make ends meet. .these farmers need to drive significant distances to and from work - adding to the average mileage. also the price of housing has skyrocketed in the major urban centers - and more people are buying homes in the outlying areas because that is all they can afford and/or because they do not want the inner city urban lifestyle. so they spend 5 hours a day commuting at average speeds just less than 80km per hour or 50 m per hour - or 125 miles each way. it is a horrendous waste of time but the high paid jobs are in the city - and the homes and lifestyle these higher earners want are not. one thing that does tend to keep the average down is the fact many households have more than one car - and even more than one car per driver - so the good car or the toy or the rv may get significantly lower mileage. this brings down the average miles per vehicle but not the average miles per driver. one neighbours corolla gets about 50 times the miles his golf gets because the golf sits in the garage most of the time while the corolla does the 60 mile each way commute 5 days a week. any winter out-of town trips are on the corolla - the shiny polished golf only goes out when the sun is shining and the roads are dry you think only the us have more than 1 vehicle per houshold you know i can easily get the figures for you if you insist. but first........... latest us figures for 2001 can be found here. it is easy to work out that the average has risen to around 11850 miles per vehicle cars average 11400suvs 13200 putrucks 12100 rvs 5900. http//www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/rtecs/nhtssurvey/2001/tablefiles/t04642005.pdf if you must bullshit youd better make sure the figures back you up. huw table a19 of the document you reference shows average household vehicle miles to be 29000 per year - with - and this is one thing i stated that you poo-pood - the rural mileage being 36000 and the urban 27000. these are 2001 figures published in 2005. the forces that have raised those numbers over the last 10 years have not diminished in the last half of those ten years. these numbers you need to understand are per household - and not per household with a vehicle. yes more than one vehicle per household drops the average per vehicle but households with no vehicle raise the average as well. and you know the old saw - figures never lie but liars figure. and - theres statistics damn statistics and lies. . .

From : huw

yeah huw must think that the net is the final authority..... see another post of mine where i use actual numbers something that huw has yet to post. you are deluded. my figures are officially collected by the us dep of energy or similar agency. huw .

From : max dodge

my esteemed leader is about 6 years too late on my planning schedule. i bought a diesel truck so i can fuel up using bio diesel. we have an abundance of soybeeans around here. as such im quite ok driving a 7000lb truck. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author not in this group... they all seem to live in the middle of nowhere have multi-car garages and drive 100 miles to get a paper...and are proud of it... given that most of us posting in this crossposted nightmare from the aadt ng actually drive the dodge trucks in the name of the ng it would also be safe to assume that we dont live in urban centers where a truck would be less needed. as for me i live in a small town and work on heavy mechanical pieces mostly dirty ones at that. on top of that i tow a car trailer. travel to any major city is an hour at least over two in most cases. i drive five hours to my other home and at times carry furniture. a small car simply wouldnt do what i need it to do. given your esteemed leaders new commitment to drastically reduce dependency on arab oil over the medium term and the ever higher price of said oil in the short medium and longer term then perhaps your should be prepared for drastic downsizing whether you like it or not. otherwise learn to enjoy bending over and being shafted by the middle east on a regular if not continuous basis. huw .

From : max dodge

the figures stand up on their own merit. if you have a particular problem with any aspect please feel free to highlight it by reference and copying and pasting it here so it can be analysed. otherwise your protestations are only so much hot air. i have done exactly that. assumptions are not part of any accurate formula. nor are generalizations or profoundly poor theories that dont stand up to even the most cursory inspection. your findings are exactly that and less. meanwhile a truck getting 5 mpg being generous will still burn 10 gallons an hour to go 50mph with 25 tons thus burning 240 gallons a day and going 1200 miles assuming it doesnt stop again being generousfor the entire 24 hour period. a 2000hp locomotive supplied with 250 gallons will move over 2500 tons roughly 25 rail cars or the equivalent of 75 trucks in volume 100 in weight 320 miles at 40mph in an 8 hour day. 30000 ton miles versus 800000 ton miles. train wins handily. do the research instead of posting assuptions guesses and bullshit. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author btw all calculations of this type are based on assumptions. these is what the basic parameters of any calculation are known as. false. it is well known how much work can be done with a specific amount of fuel when applied a specific way. as such one can calculate how many miles a ton of goods or a person can be moved using various methods. this is not rocket science nor is it theory assumption or guesswork. one would hope that the assumptions are based on reasonable averages. one would hope that assumptions wouldnt need to be used given concrete knowledge and years of testing and engineering. the figures stand up on their own merit. if you have a particular problem with any aspect please feel free to highlight it by reference and copying and pasting it here so it can be analysed. otherwise your protestations are only so much hot air. huw .

From : huw

my esteemed leader is about 6 years too late on my planning schedule. i bought a diesel truck so i can fuel up using bio diesel. we have an abundance of soybeeans around here. as such im quite ok driving a 7000lb truck. you lucky devil. the superb cummins. is it the latest 24 valve electronic version the 12 valve version is well known and very respected around here primarily because of its fitment to case maxxum. huw .

From : huw

they are official us government department figures not imagined figures from some usenet windbag who revels in the size of his tool. if you wish to say that they are mistaken or false then please do prove it. carry on. well huw ya cant have it both ways. either the u.s. government is full of crap see iraq oil consumption or they arent see your profound and complete belief that the u.s. government speaks the truth throughout their reports. it is a simple information gathering exercise by a government department. if you think they have a motive for cooking the books or you can point out an inaccuracy to them or me go ahead. otherwise accept the figures. huw .

From : huw

stop squirming it is embarrassing to those that read your posts. i am the only one who has provided proof here with links to us doe information. if you have alternative proof which has the same gavitas and is more up-to-date then this is your opportunity to provide it. please dont be shy. please dont be long. hot air buster and fairy stories as you attempt above just fools no-one. the locomotive used in the test isnt even a new improved design its over 30 years old. more numbers huw. got any yet i stand by the figures i supplied in the appropriate place. huw .

From : max dodge

yeah huw must think that the net is the final authority..... see another post of mine where i use actual numbers something that huw has yet to post. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max dodge wrote im sure the best available facts arent five years old nor are they as vague as some on here seem to use. oh no. those numbers are on the *web*. theyre a valid citation and your criticisms of them are not acknowledgeable. how dare you you unwashed american who probably drives a gasp pickup truck! and probably a dodge too! after all nothing anyone finds with a search engine could ever possibly be based on flawed statistics or be outdated... scuse me while i jackhammer my tongue out of my cheek.... .

From : max dodge

they are official us government department figures not imagined figures from some usenet windbag who revels in the size of his tool. if you wish to say that they are mistaken or false then please do prove it. carry on. well huw ya cant have it both ways. either the u.s. government is full of crap see iraq oil consumption or they arent see your profound and complete belief that the u.s. government speaks the truth throughout their reports. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max dodge wrote im sure the best available facts arent five years old nor are they as vague as some on here seem to use. oh no. those numbers are on the *web*. theyre a valid citation and your criticisms of them are not acknowledgeable. how dare you you unwashed american who probably drives a gasp pickup truck! and probably a dodge too! after all nothing anyone finds with a search engine could ever possibly be based on flawed statistics or be outdated... scuse me while i jackhammer my tongue out of my cheek.... they are official us government department figures not imagined figures from some usenet windbag who revels in the size of his tool. if you wish to say that they are mistaken or false then please do prove it. carry on. huw .

From : max dodge

an assumption does not have to mean a random number plucked from the air or fished from the bottom of someones gut. unfortunately in this case thats exactly what they are. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author thing is we dont know the data for every single car in an area unless e.g. its a street and we have asked every owner in the street so we take averages which are assumptions for the purposes of a calculation. similarly in market surveys only a few hundred or a thousand people are asked. the assumption is that the sample chosen reflects a region or country. the assumption may be reasonable tested many times but it is still an assumption. an assumption does not have to mean a random number plucked from the air or fished from the bottom of someones gut. das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- ... false. it is well known how much work can be done with a specific amount of fuel when applied a specific way. as such one can calculate how many miles a ton of goods or a person can be moved using various methods. this is not rocket science nor is it theory assumption or guesswork. ... one would hope that assumptions wouldnt need to be used given concrete knowledge and years of testing and engineering. -- max ... .

From : pooh bear

clare at snyder.on.ca wrote table a19 of the document you reference shows average household vehicle miles to be 29000 per year - with - and this is one thing i stated that you poo-pood - the rural mileage being 36000 and the urban 27000. these are 2001 figures published in 2005. the forces that have raised those numbers over the last 10 years have not diminished in the last half of those ten years. these numbers you need to understand are per household - and not per household with a vehicle. yes more than one vehicle per household drops the average per vehicle but households with no vehicle raise the average as well. and you know the old saw - figures never lie but liars figure. and - theres statistics damn statistics and lies. since youve introduced households to the discussion well now have to find out what the average houshold size is to make a valid comparison ! graham .

From : max dodge

stop squirming it is embarrassing to those that read your posts. i am the only one who has provided proof here with links to us doe information. if you have alternative proof which has the same gavitas and is more up-to-date then this is your opportunity to provide it. please dont be shy. please dont be long. hot air buster and fairy stories as you attempt above just fools no-one. already posted them huw no need for me to redo research you failed to look at. i found yet another one.... http//www.sri-rtp.com/envirofuels/envirofuelsvrfinal.pdf#search=locomotive%20fuel%20consumption check out appendix b where it lists fuel consumption by gph. wide open for an hour making 2900+hp a locomotive only burns 170gallons of fuel. with that kind of power you can pull 4000 tons 40 rail cars at 50 mph no problem. thats 200000 ton miles. a truck burning fuel at 5 mpg will go 850 miles on 170 gallons. hauling 25 tons thats 21250 ton miles. if the locomotive is operated properly itll use less fuel since it wont be wide open 100% of the time. the locomotive used in the test isnt even a new improved design its over 30 years old. more numbers huw. got any yet -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author im sure the best available facts arent five years old nor are they as vague as some on here seem to use. as to digging them up ive posted links to info proving my point. that huw likes his vague assumptions is not my problem. it does however lead to an opportunity to be amused at his cost. stop squirming it is embarrassing to those that read your posts. i am the only one who has provided proof here with links to us doe information. if you have alternative proof which has the same gavitas and is more up-to-date then this is your opportunity to provide it. please dont be shy. please dont be long. hot air buster and fairy stories as you attempt above just fools no-one. huw .

From : dori a schmetterling

i must say that i am puzzled by your assertion as the numbers were taken from official websites. why do you criticise them so das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- an assumption does not have to mean a random number plucked from the air or fished from the bottom of someones gut. unfortunately in this case thats exactly what they are. -- max ... .

From : max dodge

the figures are so overwhelmingly in favour of road transport that even if there was a significant error in favour of road the road transport and argument for closing the railways would still be overwhelming and compelling. a lie at best. bring numbers. i have where are yours government hasnt got the balls to do it though. they prefer to tax road transport to burn it on rail. the bus is just so much more efficient than the train there is no possible argument. numbers i have one perfectly comfortable car that averages 70mpg and will exceed 90mpg when trying. at what speed motorcycles dont get this sort of mpg. got proof or your claims running this with only one driver is more fuel efficient than a train let alone having between two and four people in it. more lies. the facts are plain for all but the terminally blinkered and donkey stupid. yup its plain that you are the terminally blinkered and donkey stupid. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author thing is we dont know the data for every single car in an area unless e.g. its a street and we have asked every owner in the street so we take averages which are assumptions for the purposes of a calculation. similarly in market surveys only a few hundred or a thousand people are asked. the assumption is that the sample chosen reflects a region or country. the assumption may be reasonable tested many times but it is still an assumption. an assumption does not have to mean a random number plucked from the air or fished from the bottom of someones gut. the figures are so overwhelmingly in favour of road transport that even if there was a significant error in favour of road the road transport and argument for closing the railways would still be overwhelming and compelling. government hasnt got the balls to do it though. they prefer to tax road transport to burn it on rail. the bus is just so much more efficient than the train there is no possible argument. i have one perfectly comfortable car that averages 70mpg and will exceed 90mpg when trying. running this with only one driver is more fuel efficient than a train let alone having between two and four people in it. the facts are plain for all but the terminally blinkered and donkey stupid. huw .

From : max dodge

the figures are so overwhelmingly in favour of road transport that even if there was a significant error in favour of road the road transport and argument for closing the railways would still be overwhelming and compelling. a lie at best. bring numbers. i have where are yours government hasnt got the balls to do it though. they prefer to tax road transport to burn it on rail. the bus is just so much more efficient than the train there is no possible argument. numbers i have one perfectly comfortable car that averages 70mpg and will exceed 90mpg when trying. at what speed motorcycles dont get this sort of mpg. got proof or your claims running this with only one driver is more fuel efficient than a train let alone having between two and four people in it. more lies. the facts are plain for all but the terminally blinkered and donkey stupid. yup its plain that you are the terminally blinkered and donkey stupid. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author thing is we dont know the data for every single car in an area unless e.g. its a street and we have asked every owner in the street so we take averages which are assumptions for the purposes of a calculation. similarly in market surveys only a few hundred or a thousand people are asked. the assumption is that the sample chosen reflects a region or country. the assumption may be reasonable tested many times but it is still an assumption. an assumption does not have to mean a random number plucked from the air or fished from the bottom of someones gut. the figures are so overwhelmingly in favour of road transport that even if there was a significant error in favour of road the road transport and argument for closing the railways would still be overwhelming and compelling. government hasnt got the balls to do it though. they prefer to tax road transport to burn it on rail. the bus is just so much more efficient than the train there is no possible argument. i have one perfectly comfortable car that averages 70mpg and will exceed 90mpg when trying. running this with only one driver is more fuel efficient than a train let alone having between two and four people in it. the facts are plain for all but the terminally blinkered and donkey stupid. huw .

From : max dodge

in each case where ive criticised them ive shown what the problem is by quoting it. at a certain point it becomes silly to continue debunking a person who has little regard for accuracy. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author i must say that i am puzzled by your assertion as the numbers were taken from official websites. why do you criticise them so das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- an assumption does not have to mean a random number plucked from the air or fished from the bottom of someones gut. unfortunately in this case thats exactly what they are. -- max ... .

From : roy

clare at snyder.on.ca wrote ill respond once only. i have posted the best uk and official us government figures that are available and which are appropriate or links to them. nothing more to be said really. three of you are being just plain silly. i can see it makes you feel big and important. sorry but you are not. you are just your average netkooks and bullies who probably have social problems. seen it all before. you probably have at your closest rest area. .

From : pooh bear

huw wrote the figures stand up on their own merit. if you have a particular problem with any aspect please feel free to highlight it by reference and copying and pasting it here so it can be analysed. otherwise your protestations are only so much hot air. i have done exactly that. assumptions are not part of any accurate formula. nor are generalizations or profoundly poor theories that dont stand up to even the most cursory inspection. your findings are exactly that and less. meanwhile a truck getting 5 mpg being generous will still burn 10 gallons an hour to go 50mph with 25 tons thus burning 240 gallons a day and going 1200 miles assuming it doesnt stop again being generousfor the entire 24 hour period. a 2000hp locomotive supplied with 250 gallons will move over 2500 tons roughly 25 rail cars or the equivalent of 75 trucks in volume 100 in weight 320 miles at 40mph in an 8 hour day. 30000 ton miles versus 800000 ton miles. train wins handily. do the research instead of posting assuptions guesses and bullshit. i have posted the links to perfectly valid figures and will let the reader make his own mind up. heavy bulk transport as i have previously stated is where the train is most efficient. that and underground in major cities. otherwise they are an inefficient and costly irrelevance. i have provided the links to figures that more than confirm this including damning fuel consumption figures per passenger mile with costings. i note that those figues assume the use of internal combustion engines for traction. how about electric trains graham .

From : huw

the figures are so overwhelmingly in favour of road transport that even if there was a significant error in favour of road the road transport and argument for closing the railways would still be overwhelming and compelling. a lie at best. bring numbers. i have where are yours you have obviously missed the figures that i have linked to previously so here they are again so you cannot miss them fuel use comparison for train vs trucks buses and motor cars. http//www.transwatch.co.uk/transport-fact-sheet-5.htm the index for all fact sheets can be found here. http//www.transwatch.co.uk/fact-sheets.htm a nice accurate summary can be found here http//www.spiked-online.com/articles/0000000caf2c.htm government hasnt got the balls to do it though. they prefer to tax road transport to burn it on rail. the bus is just so much more efficient than the train there is no possible argument. numbers see above not that you will take a blind bit of notice. i have one perfectly comfortable car that averages 70mpg and will exceed 90mpg when trying. at what speed motorcycles dont get this sort of mpg. got proof or your claims the panda easily acheives 70mpg. yesterday i tried to get the best economy and bettered 90. speed was up to 60mph with a reasonably clear road but i did overtake a few large trucks. roads here are undulating with many bends and high hedges. one lane each way with many towns and villages passed through. overall miles were 85. official fuel consumption data and mine looks exactly like the one in the picture. http//www.carpages.co.uk/fiat/fiat-panda-31-01-05.aspswitched=on&echo=805121050 no doubt you will claim such a car and such fuel consumption is impossible and the figures must be inaccurate lol running this with only one driver is more fuel efficient than a train let alone having between two and four people in it. more lies. again i have given adequate links to the figures. if you have difficulty using links reading or navigating a web site please let me know and i will try to help without laughing too obviously ;- the facts are plain for all but the terminally blinkered and donkey stupid. yup its plain that you are the terminally blinkered and donkey stupid. are you a young teenager huw .

From : huw

the figures stand up on their own merit. if you have a particular problem with any aspect please feel free to highlight it by reference and copying and pasting it here so it can be analysed. otherwise your protestations are only so much hot air. i have done exactly that. assumptions are not part of any accurate formula. nor are generalizations or profoundly poor theories that dont stand up to even the most cursory inspection. your findings are exactly that and less. meanwhile a truck getting 5 mpg being generous will still burn 10 gallons an hour to go 50mph with 25 tons thus burning 240 gallons a day and going 1200 miles assuming it doesnt stop again being generousfor the entire 24 hour period. a 2000hp locomotive supplied with 250 gallons will move over 2500 tons roughly 25 rail cars or the equivalent of 75 trucks in volume 100 in weight 320 miles at 40mph in an 8 hour day. 30000 ton miles versus 800000 ton miles. train wins handily. do the research instead of posting assuptions guesses and bullshit. i have posted the links to perfectly valid figures and will let the reader make his own mind up. heavy bulk transport as i have previously stated is where the train is most efficient. that and underground in major cities. otherwise they are an inefficient and costly irrelevance. i have provided the links to figures that more than confirm this including damning fuel consumption figures per passenger mile with costings. if you blindly disagree then fair enough nothing will change your mind so there is little more to say. i do note however that you also blindly disagree with us government data on car use so obviously you are totally blinkered in your beliefs and no amount of proper evidence will sway you. indeed you deny its validity and accuracy. huw . 222 312424 va6dnynzesb0undenz2dnuvzsednz2d@comcast.com not like you think. remember open rear only means that there is nothing forcing the wheels to turn at the same speed not that they can turn at different speeds with no effect to the axle speed. there is no magic here if the two wheels are turning at different speeds then the axle will turn at a speed between them as there is no way for the axle to take up the difference in an open rear other than changing speed. this will cause little wear on the spyder gears in an open rear as that is what they are intended to do anyway. agreed. the spyder gears are inteneded to take up differance in rotational speed between 2 wheels on the same axle during a turn. thus they do nothing while in straightline mode. running 2 diff tire sizes on the same axle essentially puts the axles differentail in a c

From : huw

i must say that i am puzzled by your assertion as the numbers were taken from official websites. why do you criticise them so i suspect it is purely because the numbers do not agree with his prior claims but do agree with mine and your estimate. simple as that. huw .

From : theguy

on sat 11 feb 2006 110102 -0000 huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote my esteemed leader is about 6 years too late on my planning schedule. i bought a diesel truck so i can fuel up using bio diesel. we have an abundance of soybeeans around here. as such im quite ok driving a 7000lb truck. you lucky devil. the superb cummins. is it the latest 24 valve electronic version the 12 valve version is well known and very respected around here primarily because of its fitment to case maxxum. huw both the 12 valve and the 24 valve are well known and very respected around here mate primarily because they work well. at least thats how we judge stuff here in the us old boy. .

From : steve

he just said that he hauls tractors and cars on trailers. downsizing for people that actually *use* big pickups for what theyre designed for simply isnt an option. fortunately the market is full of cheap used ones from all the urbanites that used them as status symbols in recent years - while business use may be justified the rest of the world has no problem using much more efficient vehicles. to say you have no alternative is to submit to a long term shafting. there is a choice. fairly soon i suspect things will get distinctly uncomfortable you seem to be beyond clueless to the fact that these american full-sized diesel pickups do their job while still getting order-of 15 mpg at gross weights of 150000 pounds. theyve been common-rail injecte turbocharged for several years now and before that were typically heui types since the early 90s. the rest of the its lowercase by the way world doesnt do any better than that. .. more blather snipped .

From : huw

huw wrote the figures stand up on their own merit. if you have a particular problem with any aspect please feel free to highlight it by reference and copying and pasting it here so it can be analysed. otherwise your protestations are only so much hot air. i have done exactly that. assumptions are not part of any accurate formula. nor are generalizations or profoundly poor theories that dont stand up to even the most cursory inspection. your findings are exactly that and less. meanwhile a truck getting 5 mpg being generous will still burn 10 gallons an hour to go 50mph with 25 tons thus burning 240 gallons a day and going 1200 miles assuming it doesnt stop again being generousfor the entire 24 hour period. a 2000hp locomotive supplied with 250 gallons will move over 2500 tons roughly 25 rail cars or the equivalent of 75 trucks in volume 100 in weight 320 miles at 40mph in an 8 hour day. 30000 ton miles versus 800000 ton miles. train wins handily. do the research instead of posting assuptions guesses and bullshit. i have posted the links to perfectly valid figures and will let the reader make his own mind up. heavy bulk transport as i have previously stated is where the train is most efficient. that and underground in major cities. otherwise they are an inefficient and costly irrelevance. i have provided the links to figures that more than confirm this including damning fuel consumption figures per passenger mile with costings. i note that those figues assume the use of internal combustion engines for traction. how about electric trains the number of kilowatts horsepower used is the same so it depends if the power is generated from nuclear orimultion coal oil gas hydro wind solar or tidal. in effect you have to go with cost in that case which is the only important measure. huw huw .

From : clare at snyder on ca

on sat 11 feb 2006 110825 -0000 huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote stop squirming it is embarrassing to those that read your posts. i am the only one who has provided proof here with links to us doe information. if you have alternative proof which has the same gavitas and is more up-to-date then this is your opportunity to provide it. please dont be shy. please dont be long. hot air buster and fairy stories as you attempt above just fools no-one. the locomotive used in the test isnt even a new improved design its over 30 years old. more numbers huw. got any yet i stand by the figures i supplied in the appropriate place. huw from http//www.rco.on.ca/factsheet/fsb02.html#canada/%20canadians comparisons a commuter train carrying 80 passengers requires roughly 710 british thermal units btu of energy per passenger per mile and a trolley with 55 passengers uses around 1050 btu per passenger mile and a one person car some 7380. public transport also saves valuable city space. buses and trains carry more people in each vehicle and if they operate on their own right-of-way particularly in underground tunnels can safely run at much higher speeds. an underground metro can carry 70000 passengers past a certain point in a single lane in one hour surface rapid rail can carry up to 50000 people and a trolley or a bus in a separate lane more than 30000. a lane of private cars with four occupants by contrast can move only about 8000 people per hour. out of the car into the future by marcia d. lowe. ww nov/dec 1990 .

From : max dodge

i have posted the links to perfectly valid figures and will let the reader make his own mind up. another failure to understand on your part. its not a matter of opinion the numbers are what they are you have none and ive given plenty. heavy bulk transport as i have previously stated is where the train is most efficient. that and underground in major cities. otherwise they are an inefficient and costly irrelevance. average human weighs in at 200lbs. pile 40 of them in a rail car nd you have bulk transport. youve yet to prove that rail transpor is inefficent quite the opposite youve proven nothing in that regard. as to cost that isnt a measure of efficiency and im not saying building a rail line is cheap. but... in the long term it will save huge amounts of fuel which was the original point. i have provided the links to figures that more than confirm this including damning fuel consumption figures per passenger mile with costings. sadly your figures were not accurate given the assumptions that were used to arrive at those figures. if you blindly disagree then fair enough nothing will change your mind so there is little more to say. i do note however that you also blindly disagree with us government data on car use ive never commented on u.s. data on auto use so assuming once again what my opinion is would be just that an assumption. so obviously you are totally blinkered in your beliefs and no amount of proper evidence will sway you. indeed you deny its validity and accuracy. without a thorough examination of any report that the u.s. government publishes one has to take into account the funding source and the actual data collection agency. therefore they are no more accurate than any other study source and possibly much more biased. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author the figures stand up on their own merit. if you have a particular problem with any aspect please feel free to highlight it by reference and copying and pasting it here so it can be analysed. otherwise your protestations are only so much hot air. i have done exactly that. assumptions are not part of any accurate formula. nor are generalizations or profoundly poor theories that dont stand up to even the most cursory inspection. your findings are exactly that and less. meanwhile a truck getting 5 mpg being generous will still burn 10 gallons an hour to go 50mph with 25 tons thus burning 240 gallons a day and going 1200 miles assuming it doesnt stop again being generousfor the entire 24 hour period. a 2000hp locomotive supplied with 250 gallons will move over 2500 tons roughly 25 rail cars or the equivalent of 75 trucks in volume 100 in weight 320 miles at 40mph in an 8 hour day. 30000 ton miles versus 800000 ton miles. train wins handily. do the research instead of posting assuptions guesses and bullshit. i have posted the links to perfectly valid figures and will let the reader make his own mind up. heavy bulk transport as i have previously stated is where the train is most efficient. that and underground in major cities. otherwise they are an inefficient and costly irrelevance. i have provided the links to figures that more than confirm this including damning fuel consumption figures per passenger mile with costings. if you blindly disagree then fair enough nothing will change your mind so there is little more to say. i do note however that you also blindly disagree with us government data on car use so obviously you are totally blinkered in your beliefs and no amount of proper evidence will sway you. indeed you deny its validity and accuracy. huw .

From : max dodge

it is a simple information gathering exercise by a government department. if you think they have a motive for cooking the books or you can point out an inaccuracy to them or me go ahead. otherwise accept the figures. i have done exactly that in each case that ive commented upon. please go back and read. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author they are official us government department figures not imagined figures from some usenet windbag who revels in the size of his tool. if you wish to say that they are mistaken or false then please do prove it. carry on. well huw ya cant have it both ways. either the u.s. government is full of crap see iraq oil consumption or they arent see your profound and complete belief that the u.s. government speaks the truth throughout their reports. it is a simple information gathering exercise by a government department. if you think they have a motive for cooking the books or you can point out an inaccuracy to them or me go ahead. otherwise accept the figures. huw .

From : huw

it is a simple information gathering exercise by a government department. if you think they have a motive for cooking the books or you can point out an inaccuracy to them or me go ahead. otherwise accept the figures. i have done exactly that in each case that ive commented upon. please go back and read. you are obviously a fantasist. huw .

From : theguy

on sat 11 feb 2006 190454 -0000 huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote it is a simple information gathering exercise by a government department. if you think they have a motive for cooking the books or you can point out an inaccuracy to them or me go ahead. otherwise accept the figures. i have done exactly that in each case that ive commented upon. please go back and read. you are obviously a fantasist. huw now that is a hoot. a person from the uk complaining about the us calling that guy from the us a fantasist. huw just the fact that you are here bitching about the us shows you and pooh butt to be the biggest fantasists in existance today. to believe that you uk guys can even play in the same league as us us guys proves that. i mean come on. what has the uk done other than provide a rather basic testing ground for dental hygiene you wanna bitch about our car industry what has the uk ever provided oh yeah electronics by lucas the prince of darkness. oh an triumph the bike that helped invent the mighty wipe. look we cant use your industry as a bad example because you dont have any. so while i understand you coming on and complaining about the us to take your mind off of the uk dont lose perspective. and pooh bear wanting to rip on our military. hey again at least we have one. i am sure it wont be long before you see proof of that since we will probably have to come over and save your sorry asses again. geezz come on. your envy is showing huw. .

From : huw

theguy theguy@notebook.com wrote a whole load of infantile rubbish not worth responding to. huw .

From : roy

i have posted the links to perfectly valid figures and will let the reader make his own mind up. without a thorough examination of any report that the u.s. government publishes one has to take into account the funding source and the actual data collection agency. therefore they are no more accurate than any other study source and possibly much more biased. boy is that ever the truth!!! roy -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author the figures stand up on their own merit. if you have a particular problem with any aspect please feel free to highlight it by reference and copying and pasting it here so it can be analysed. otherwise your protestations are only so much hot air. i have done exactly that. assumptions are not part of any accurate formula. nor are generalizations or profoundly poor theories that dont stand up to even the most cursory inspection. your findings are exactly that and less. meanwhile a truck getting 5 mpg being generous will still burn 10 gallons an hour to go 50mph with 25 tons thus burning 240 gallons a day and going 1200 miles assuming it doesnt stop again being generousfor the entire 24 hour period. a 2000hp locomotive supplied with 250 gallons will move over 2500 tons roughly 25 rail cars or the equivalent of 75 trucks in volume 100 in weight 320 miles at 40mph in an 8 hour day. 30000 ton miles versus 800000 ton miles. train wins handily. do the research instead of posting assuptions guesses and bullshit. i have posted the links to perfectly valid figures and will let the reader make his own mind up. heavy bulk transport as i have previously stated is where the train is most efficient. that and underground in major cities. otherwise they are an inefficient and costly irrelevance. i have provided the links to figures that more than confirm this including damning fuel consumption figures per passenger mile with costings. if you blindly disagree then fair enough nothing will change your mind so there is little more to say. i do note however that you also blindly disagree with us government data on car use so obviously you are totally blinkered in your beliefs and no amount of proper evidence will sway you. indeed you deny its validity and accuracy. huw .

From : max dodge

i note that those figues assume the use of internal combustion engines for traction. how about electric trains im not sure how energy consumption would be measured on these given the method of fueling them. i did a brief search and found that most studies measured kw usage over a year rather than individual units. this link provides details of the train weight and passenger loading on a light rail system. http//www.sacrt.com/lightrail.stm i suggest that the lack of data for power use per train is because power use varies widely based on load. load would be difficult to determine as it would be unknown how many passengers were on an entire rail line at one given time. further complicting this most electric transit systems have multiple feed points or substations. as such it would be impossible to measure all of these points and come up with an accurate estimate of the power usage given the mobility of the consumption points. however if you find such data id certainly like to see it. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author huw wrote the figures stand up on their own merit. if you have a particular problem with any aspect please feel free to highlight it by reference and copying and pasting it here so it can be analysed. otherwise your protestations are only so much hot air. i have done exactly that. assumptions are not part of any accurate formula. nor are generalizations or profoundly poor theories that dont stand up to even the most cursory inspection. your findings are exactly that and less. meanwhile a truck getting 5 mpg being generous will still burn 10 gallons an hour to go 50mph with 25 tons thus burning 240 gallons a day and going 1200 miles assuming it doesnt stop again being generousfor the entire 24 hour period. a 2000hp locomotive supplied with 250 gallons will move over 2500 tons roughly 25 rail cars or the equivalent of 75 trucks in volume 100 in weight 320 miles at 40mph in an 8 hour day. 30000 ton miles versus 800000 ton miles. train wins handily. do the research instead of posting assuptions guesses and bullshit. i have posted the links to perfectly valid figures and will let the reader make his own mind up. heavy bulk transport as i have previously stated is where the train is most efficient. that and underground in major cities. otherwise they are an inefficient and costly irrelevance. i have provided the links to figures that more than confirm this including damning fuel consumption figures per passenger mile with costings. i note that those figues assume the use of internal combustion engines for traction. how about electric trains graham .

From : max dodge

i see youve decided to clip my numbers without any cause except to decieve anyone reading your replies. here they are again wide open for an hour making 2900+hp a locomotive only burns 170gallons of fuel. with that kind of power you can pull 4000 tons 40 rail cars at 50 mph no problem. thats 200000 ton miles. a truck burning fuel at 5 mpg will go 850 miles on 170 gallons. hauling 25 tons thats 21250 ton miles. if the locomotive is operated properly itll use less fuel since it wont be wide open 100% of the time. now unless you can debunk these figures or have a contradictory source i suggest you are the one with hot air in lieu of numbers. or maybe your facts are simply in the loo. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author stop squirming it is embarrassing to those that read your posts. i am the only one who has provided proof here with links to us doe information. if you have alternative proof which has the same gavitas and is more up-to-date then this is your opportunity to provide it. please dont be shy. please dont be long. hot air buster and fairy stories as you attempt above just fools no-one. the locomotive used in the test isnt even a new improved design its over 30 years old. more numbers huw. got any yet i stand by the figures i supplied in the appropriate place. huw .

From : huw

i have posted the links to perfectly valid figures and will let the reader make his own mind up. another failure to understand on your part. its not a matter of opinion the numbers are what they are you have none and ive given plenty. do you abuse some kind of illegal substance heavy bulk transport as i have previously stated is where the train is most efficient. that and underground in major cities. otherwise they are an inefficient and costly irrelevance. average human weighs in at 200lbs. pile 40 of them in a rail car nd you have bulk transport. youve yet to prove that rail transpor is inefficent quite the opposite youve proven nothing in that regard. as to cost that isnt a measure of efficiency and im not saying building a rail line is cheap. but... in the long term it will save huge amounts of fuel which was the original point. fuel use is well documented in the links i gave you or linked pages thereof. it is substantially very substantially in favour of buses and even private cars. there can be no rational dispute of this. here are the figures copied below so that the lazy or plain stupid can read them with the minimum of effort. network south east 108 passenger-miles per gallon regional services 123 passenger-miles per gallon intercity - 123 passenger-miles per gallon system wide average 115 passenger miles per-gallon. - similar to a diesel powered car containing two people but much less than the 200 passengermiles per gallon available from an express coach with 20 aboard doing 10 miles per gallon. note that the coach bus is less than half full. these coaches have 55 seats or more. i have provided the links to figures that more than confirm this including damning fuel consumption figures per passenger mile with costings. sadly your figures were not accurate given the assumptions that were used to arrive at those figures. what assumptions do you dispute. if the coach/bus were used at a higher capacity the figures would be even more in favour of them. all the assumptions are made in favour of the train in order to underline just how much more efficient the bus is despite assumptions leaning towards train. if you blindly disagree then fair enough nothing will change your mind so there is little more to say. i do note however that you also blindly disagree with us government data on car use ive never commented on u.s. data on auto use so assuming once again what my opinion is would be just that an assumption. so obviously you are totally blinkered in your beliefs and no amount of proper evidence will sway you. indeed you deny its validity and accuracy. without a thorough examination of any report that the u.s. government publishes one has to take into account the funding source and the actual data collection agency. therefore they are no more accurate than any other study source and possibly much more biased. i have given you links. if the data is too complex for you to manage that is your problem. for you to doubt the data accuracy is plain silly. there is no possible agenda that would justify your doubt. the plain truth is that it does not agree with your view and therefore you will not accept its validity. children usually grow out of this at by the time they reach their teens. huw .

From : huw

clare at snyder.on.ca wrote ill respond once only. i have posted the best uk and official us government figures that are available and which are appropriate or links to them. nothing more to be said really. three of you are being just plain silly. i can see it makes you feel big and important. sorry but you are not. you are just your average netkooks and bullies who probably have social problems. seen it all before. you probably have at your closest rest area. truckers huw .

From : huw

i note that those figues assume the use of internal combustion engines for traction. how about electric trains im not sure how energy consumption would be measured on these given the method of fueling them. i did a brief search and found that most studies measured kw usage over a year rather than individual units. this link provides details of the train weight and passenger loading on a light rail system. http//www.sacrt.com/lightrail.stm i suggest that the lack of data for power use per train is because power use varies widely based on load. load would be difficult to determine as it would be unknown how many passengers were on an entire rail line at one given time. further complicting this most electric transit systems have multiple feed points or substations. as such it would be impossible to measure all of these points and come up with an accurate estimate of the power usage given the mobility of the consumption points. however if you find such data id certainly like to see it. parameters for conversion of gw-h to litres and gallons are as follows 1. power stations are 37% efficient up from 35 in 1990 source is table 5.5 of the digest of united kingdom energy statistics. 2. transmission losses amounted to 4% transport-watch assumption. 3. the net calorific value of diesel is 42.9 giga-joules per tonne and the specific gravity is 0.84. 4. one gallon equates to 4.546 litres 5. hence one gw-h is equivalent to 3600 x 1000/0.37 x 0.96 x 42.9 x 0.84 = 0.281 million litres of diesel burnt in buses or to 0.06187 million imperial gallons. if you had read and understood the information i provided you would not need to ask the question. it ends up with undisputed figures for the uk of a best of an equivalent of 123 passenger miles per gallon on intercity electrified routes with local services falling to a low of 108. huw .

From : clare at snyder on ca

on sat 11 feb 2006 110825 -0000 huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote stop squirming it is embarrassing to those that read your posts. i am the only one who has provided proof here with links to us doe information. if you have alternative proof which has the same gavitas and is more up-to-date then this is your opportunity to provide it. please dont be shy. please dont be long. hot air buster and fairy stories as you attempt above just fools no-one. the locomotive used in the test isnt even a new improved design its over 30 years old. more numbers huw. got any yet i stand by the figures i supplied in the appropriate place. huw also from http//www.rco.on.ca/factsheet/fsb02.html#canada/%20canadians costs few u.s. drivers realize that including fuel maintenance insurance depreciation and finance charges on their cars they pay $34 for every 100 miles of driving. on a yearly basis it costs the average solo commuter nearly $1700 just to get to work. by contrast the average public transport fare is $14 per 100 miles. out of the car into the future by marcia d. lowe. ww nov/dec 1990 the first step is to bring to light the hidden costs of driving such as air pollution municipal services and road construction and repair. perhaps least-recognized of these public expenses are items such as police fire and ambulance services required for an automobile-centered system. according to an analyses of the salaries and personnel time of the pasadena police department in california 40 percent of department costs are from accidents theft traffic control and other automobile-related items. extending this finding to the entire united states suggests that local governments spend at least $60 billion on automobiles. employer-provided free parking a tax-free fringe benefit represents another huge subsidy to drivers variously estimated to be worth an additional $12 to $50 billion a year. out of the car into the future by marcia d. lowe. ww nov/dec 1990 the metro toronto board of trade calculates that traffic congestion costs two billion dollars per year to ontario businesses. ross snetsinger portfolio; found in transporting ourselves to economic growth by sue zielinski facts.html at www.kows.web.net the united states spends nearly $200 million per day building and rebuilding roads paving moratorium; found in transporting ourselves to economic growth by sue zielinski facts.html at www.kows.web.net the ontario ministry of transportation has estimated that the societal costs of automobile accidents causing injury and death exceed $1.9 billion per year including health costs policing repairs lost wages and other impacts. this is equivalent to roughly $380 per taxpayer per year. udo stillich p. 11; found in transporting ourselves to economic growth by sue zielinski facts.html at www.kows.web.net .

From : clare at snyder on ca

on sat 11 feb 2006 110825 -0000 huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote stop squirming it is embarrassing to those that read your posts. i am the only one who has provided proof here with links to us doe information. if you have alternative proof which has the same gavitas and is more up-to-date then this is your opportunity to provide it. please dont be shy. please dont be long. hot air buster and fairy stories as you attempt above just fools no-one. the locomotive used in the test isnt even a new improved design its over 30 years old. more numbers huw. got any yet i stand by the figures i supplied in the appropriate place. huw also from http//www.rco.on.ca/factsheet/fsb02.html#canada/%20canadians energy the energy equivalent of 575000 barrels of oil a day are required to produce 10 million cars in the u.s. . greenpeace international 1991 found in the recycling of automobiles a study of the scope of the by mike carriere / file industry sectors automotive dot department of transportation u.s. says the average one-way commute is about 10 miles. to accomplish this flat a 3000- pound car with a single occupant uses about 65000 btus of energy. it would be roughly 35 times more energy-efficient to travel in a four-person carpool; 7 times more efficient to go by bus; 35 times more efficient to go by subway; 60 times more efficient to go by train. motion sickness friends of the earth. vol. 21 no. 2 spring 1991 it has been estimated that between 66 and 105 gigajoules of energy are needed to produce a motor vehicle depending on the proportion of recycled materials used. this is equivalent to the energy contained in between 2000 and 3000 l of gasoline or the amount of fuel consumed by 16000 to 26000 km of driving. a state of the environment fact sheet no. 93-1 environmental implications of the automobile environment canada therein references jacques a. 1992 canadas greenhouse gas emissions for 1990. ottawa environment canada conservation and protection a comparison of energy use by transportation mode transportation mode fuel electricity use l/100 km number of commuters energy use mj/person-km automobile 10 7 1 4 1 4 3.16 0.79 2.21 0.55 diesel bus 56 40 0.52 subway 2.61 kwh/km 75 per car 0.13 .

From : clare at snyder on ca

on sat 11 feb 2006 110825 -0000 huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote stop squirming it is embarrassing to those that read your posts. i am the only one who has provided proof here with links to us doe information. if you have alternative proof which has the same gavitas and is more up-to-date then this is your opportunity to provide it. please dont be shy. please dont be long. hot air buster and fairy stories as you attempt above just fools no-one. the locomotive used in the test isnt even a new improved design its over 30 years old. more numbers huw. got any yet i stand by the figures i supplied in the appropriate place. huw you want more internet info from the same source americans collectively drive nearly as much as the rest of the world combined. not only are they the biggest travelers on the planet they travel interplanetary distances. in 1990 the u.s. auto and truck fleet will travel two trillion miles the distance to the planet pluto and back 364 times. one - half of all americans have put two cars in their garage. cars sick automobiles ad nauseam by robert schaeffer in greenpeace vol. 15 no. 3 may/ june 1990 .

From : clare at snyder on ca

on sat 11 feb 2006 110825 -0000 huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote stop squirming it is embarrassing to those that read your posts. i am the only one who has provided proof here with links to us doe information. if you have alternative proof which has the same gavitas and is more up-to-date then this is your opportunity to provide it. please dont be shy. please dont be long. hot air buster and fairy stories as you attempt above just fools no-one. the locomotive used in the test isnt even a new improved design its over 30 years old. more numbers huw. got any yet i stand by the figures i supplied in the appropriate place. huw some representative day trips in north america selected from john cletheroes usa and canada holiday hints -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- feasible one day journeys by car in the usa and canada have had many people ask how far it is possible to travel by car in one day in the usa and canada. on rural interstates you can safely assume an average speed of 60mph over a long distance but on us highways and state highways it is much more difficult to give a figure since the quality and nature of the roads can vary although most are excellent. also you may wish to stop to look round towns or admire views and you may encounter the occasional delay due to construction road works. a safe working figure for an average speed on open roads in the west is probably around 50mph but rather lower through towns over mountain passes etc. due to the greater number of towns overall speeds on normal roads tend to be less in the east than in the west. alpine texas to dalhart texas 480 miles a fascinating ride as the country changes from the mountainous areanear alpine to the flat lands of the texas panhandle. baker oregon to jackson wyoming 525 miles via challis this is a very long trip - about the limit of what is viable in one day. using the interstate for the majority of the trip would probably make it much more acceptable in terms of journey time. bishop california to st george utah 430 miles via us395 south to big pine over the mountains via a fairly slow back road to us95 south to las vegas then i-15 north to st george. a long trip. craig colorado to jackson wyoming 340 miles a fairly long trip. rock springs is a good place to stop for lunch. flagstaff arizona to las vegas nevada 246 miles an easy trip. flagstaff arizona to los angeles california 467 miles los angeles california to st george utah 410 miles an easy trip especially if you start from the east side of los angeles. las vegas is a convenient place to stop for lunch. lordsburg new mexico to tucson arizona 200 miles a short trip allowing time to visit both units of saguaro national park near tucson. logan utah to st george utah 383 miles a fairly long trip with some heavy traffic likely on i-15 in the salt lake city and ogden area. jackson wyoming to twin falls idaho 305 miles a short trip. golden british columbia to princeton british columbia 250 miles an easy trip. grand marais minnesota to minneapolis/st paul minnesota 260 miles a fairly easy trip. helena montana to jackson wyoming 410 miles helena montana to kalispell montana 234 miles an easy trip. .

From : max dodge

http//www.transwatch.co.uk/transport-fact-sheet-5.htm yup saw it before. and ill repeat where it fails 1 it does not take into account the capacity any mode of transport. this is to say it checks efficiency at a given level of use but it does not provide figures of efficiency at peak capacity. it would be easy to say an auto was inefficient while transporting one person however this forgets its ability to carry two or more. same follows for the rail system. if you are to call an auto efficient while used to capacity then you must also look at the rail car for efficiency at its peak use. this document fails to do so. 2 it assumes that a railcar will be empty half the time. this is a false assumption particularly in light of the fact that they alow for the bus to have an average based on varying loads over total time in use. thus the figures for railcar efficiency are flawed. if a bus/lorrie will have passengers/load in any given direction so will a rail car. 3 it seeks to convert electric power to diesel fuel which is impossible. first off not all diesel engines are equal which is to say they vary in efficiency. thus the calorific value of diesel fuel becomes irrelevant since not all engines will convert that energy perfectly or at the same level of efficency. therefore the conversion formula is flawed. second electric power is a very different source that a diesel engine. it can be generated from sources other than diesel fuel thus varying its efficiency of production. as such it cannot be compared strictly to the energy in a gallon of diesel fuel or the cost of that diesel fuel. thus this source is flawed in its conclusins. the index for all fact sheets can be found here. http//www.transwatch.co.uk/fact-sheets.htm fact sheet one oh joy the lack of realism is hilarious. one thousand motor coaches thats a mile of busses. all burning 10 miles per gallon. to go 10 miles thats 1000 gallons. a ten railcar train would haul 1000 passengers sources suggest it would be more and burn 70 gph. a 10 mile trip at 60mph would take about 10 minutes allowing for speed up and slow down thus burning 7 gallons. to move 50000 people thats 350 gallons of fuel. this assumes a diesel locomotive is used; i suggest that electric rail is more efficient. if its that inaccurate in its first paragraph i think ill stop there. fact sheet two the death rate on motorways and non-built up a-roads is 5.2. if pedestrians cyclist and motorcyclists are excluded then the death rate is 3.75 suggesting that if road vehicles enjoyed a segregated network as do trains the death rate by road would be less than the death rate of 3.94 for the national rail system. unfortunately you cannot exclude motorcyclists or pedestrians. as such 5.2 versus 3.94 is exactly what it is more deaths on the motorway than the railway. suggesting that you can simply eliminate certain forms of death is false it cannot be done in reality and the figures are flawed if one excludes those numbers. fact sheet nine it is a flawed conclusion to figure costs directly from railcar to motorcoach when the mtor coach wont last as long nor carry as many passengers per trip. ill spare you a boring run down of the rest as ive not the time or energy to go through a document already proven to be biased and inaccurate. a nice accurate summary can be found here http//www.spiked-online.com/articles/0000000caf2c.htm well yeah except its not. since the energy used in moving an object depends on the mass weight multiplied by the distance travelled it follows that the train is at a major disadvantage. in addition the traction of pneumatic tyres is more effective at transferring energy into motion than metal wheels on metal rails which waste much energy as heat. first he leaves out two very important variables rolling and wind resistance. second his makes a totally false assumption regarding tractive effort and friction transfer of energy. lastly its not accurate because its based on cost rather than efficiency. you limeys seem intent on killing rail transport because you subsidise it. you would rather spend the money on yourself and your cars. but who builds the roads i said it before it may cost more to build an efficent means of transport but the net effect of reducing energy use and ultimately dependancy on foreign oil is well worth the initial investment. if you prefer to be comfortable in your present mode of transport then dont complain about being uncomfortable in spending money on diesel fuel. your line of thinking is consistant with 1950s united states where you build more motorways interstates as we call them and put less into rail. now we are seeing the result of that decision. perhaps you stubborn english could learn from our mistake it appears the reasonable english have already figured it out. until you find a source that refutes my locomotive fuel usage rate

From : max dodge

i have the cummins isb which is one generation back. having noted the better efficiency of diesel fuel over gasoline i made the decision to buy a higher cost vehicle in order to increase my efficency long term. this fails to mention the benefits of having a viable vehicle long after most have worn out. i get about 22mpg when hauling a load on the trailer at 55mph. ill average 19.5 mpg over a long distance trip with speeds of 75mph and periods of travel in urban traffic. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author my esteemed leader is about 6 years too late on my planning schedule. i bought a diesel truck so i can fuel up using bio diesel. we have an abundance of soybeeans around here. as such im quite ok driving a 7000lb truck. you lucky devil. the superb cummins. is it the latest 24 valve electronic version the 12 valve version is well known and very respected around here primarily because of its fitment to case maxxum. huw .

From : huw

clare at snyder.on.ca wrote ill respond once only. i have posted the best uk and official us government figures that are available and which are appropriate or links to them. nothing more to be said really. three of you are being just plain silly. i can see it makes you feel big and important. sorry but you are not. you are just your average netkooks and bullies who probably have social problems. seen it all before. huw .

From : roy

i see youve decided to clip my numbers without any cause except to decieve anyone reading your replies. here they are again wide open for an hour making 2900+hp a locomotive only burns 170gallons of fuel. max you have been away from it too long. a passenger loco that drives the gen set for heat and ac in the coachs 100 gal. per hour and that is high. these locos are being phased out. a passenger loco with a cummins donkey to drive the gen about 45 gal per hour. no passenger loco runs wot unless pulling a hill or leaving a station. a frieght loco is much higher in consumption but i doubt reachs 100gal per hour. roy with that kind of power you can pull 4000 tons 40 rail cars at 50 mph no problem. thats 200000 ton miles. a truck burning fuel at 5 mpg will go 850 miles on 170 gallons. hauling 25 tons thats 21250 ton miles. if the locomotive is operated properly itll use less fuel since it wont be wide open 100% of the time. now unless you can debunk these figures or have a contradictory source i suggest you are the one with hot air in lieu of numbers. or maybe your facts are simply in the loo. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author stop squirming it is embarrassing to those that read your posts. i am the only one who has provided proof here with links to us doe information. if you have alternative proof which has the same gavitas and is more up-to-date then this is your opportunity to provide it. please dont be shy. please dont be long. hot air buster and fairy stories as you attempt above just fools no-one. the locomotive used in the test isnt even a new improved design its over 30 years old. more numbers huw. got any yet i stand by the figures i supplied in the appropriate place. huw .

From : huw

http//www.transwatch.co.uk/transport-fact-sheet-5.htm yup saw it before. and ill repeat where it fails 1 it does not take into account the capacity any mode of transport. this is to say it checks efficiency at a given level of use the actual level of use in the case of trains. also for buses in some cases but in others it assumes less than 50% seat utilisation. but it does not provide figures of efficiency at peak capacity. if you investigate the site it gives you the peak capacity of lines into stations and all other relevant data. it would be easy to say an auto was inefficient while transporting one person however this forgets its ability to carry two or more. same follows for the rail system. if you are to call an auto efficient while used to capacity then you must also look at the rail car for efficiency at its peak use. this document fails to do so. other fact sheets do exactly this. it does not take effort or more than a few seconds to find what you want. 2 it assumes that a railcar will be empty half the time. no it does not. this is a false assumption particularly in light of the fact that they alow for the bus to have an average based on varying loads over total time in use. slightly less than 50% occupancy is what i find there. thus the figures for railcar efficiency are flawed. if a bus/lorrie will have passengers/load in any given direction so will a rail car. of course. you seem unable to interpret the data. 3 it seeks to convert electric power to diesel fuel which is impossible. i have given the formula which is explained in detail on the site. first off not all diesel engines are equal which is to say they vary in efficiency. oh man! get a life. if you are down to that level where you cannot assume an average then you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel thus the calorific value of diesel fuel becomes irrelevant since not all engines will convert that energy perfectly or at the same level of efficency. therefore the conversion formula is flawed. there is less than 10% difference in efficiency between the best and worst large modern loco diesel. in these calculations this is irrellevant. second electric power is a very different source that a diesel engine. it can be generated from sources other than diesel fuel as i have already explained in another post. in fact the whole calculation is explained on the site and if you cannot comprehend it then go to a school because i am not your teacher. it is sufficient to say that whatever the energy source the amount of energy consumed is the same as expressed in kw or horsepower. thus varying its efficiency of production. as such it cannot be compared strictly to the energy in a gallon of diesel fuel or the cost of that diesel fuel. the cost is not relevant to the energy consumed which was your argument when it suited you. in this case it is the correct and only conclusion. thus this source is flawed in its conclusins. the index for all fact sheets can be found here. http//www.transwatch.co.uk/fact-sheets.htm fact sheet one oh joy the lack of realism is hilarious. one thousand motor coaches thats a mile of busses. all burning 10 miles per gallon. to go 10 miles thats 1000 gallons. a ten railcar train would haul 1000 passengers sources suggest it would be more and burn 70 gph. a 10 mile trip at 60mph would take about 10 minutes allowing for speed up and slow down thus burning 7 gallons. to move 50000 people thats 350 gallons of fuel. this assumes a diesel locomotive is used; i suggest that electric rail is more efficient. if its that inaccurate in its first paragraph i think ill stop there. you can distort the figures all you like but they are plain. you may well suggest that electric is more efficient but that is dealt with in comparison to coaches in the fact sheets. fact sheet two the death rate on motorways and non-built up a-roads is 5.2. if pedestrians cyclist and motorcyclists are excluded then the death rate is 3.75 suggesting that if road vehicles enjoyed a segregated network as do trains the death rate by road would be less than the death rate of 3.94 for the national rail system. unfortunately you cannot exclude motorcyclists or pedestrians. as such 5.2 versus 3.94 is exactly what it is more deaths on the motorway than the railway. suggesting that you can simply eliminate certain forms of death is false it cannot be done in reality and the figures are flawed if one excludes those numbers. but that is exactly what the railway figures do and why figure for accurate comparison is 3.75v3.94. to compare like with like. the railway figures do not include deaths due to crossing point collissions pedestrian collissions or anything but train passenger deaths due to crashes or other accidents. it is also true that if coaches were segregated to p

From : theguy

on sat 11 feb 2006 200923 -0000 huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote theguy theguy@notebook.com wrote a whole load of infantile rubbish not worth responding to. huw ah and yet you just did. i thought that might happen. .

From : huw

i have the cummins isb which is one generation back. having noted the better efficiency of diesel fuel over gasoline i made the decision to buy a higher cost vehicle in order to increase my efficency long term. this fails to mention the benefits of having a viable vehicle long after most have worn out. i get about 22mpg when hauling a load on the trailer at 55mph. ill average 19.5 mpg over a long distance trip with speeds of 75mph and periods of travel in urban traffic. these engines are at their most efficient between 1500 and 2000erpm where they actually produce power at around 215g/kw/hour which is way better than most small car engines. the only drawback that i can imagine is a supposed supposed because i have never driven one in a light truck application narrow rev band. i assume that it revs more than 2350 in your truck. in the tractor maximum power is at 2200 but yours must surely reach somewhere around 2750 no-load with max power at 2600 if this is the case it needs a lot of gears or it needs to be revved to the governor before upchanging assuming a stick shift under load up hill huw .

From : huw

on sat 11 feb 2006 200923 -0000 huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote theguy theguy@notebook.com wrote a whole load of infantile rubbish not worth responding to. huw ah and yet you just did. i thought that might happen. so even you the author do not deny it was infantile rubbish. that is most informative in itself. huw .

From : pooh bear

theguy wrote i mean come on. what has the uk done ran the largest empire in the history of the world for one. the uk owns more of the us economy than any other country too. graham .

From : theguy

on sat 11 feb 2006 212011 -0000 huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote on sat 11 feb 2006 200923 -0000 huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote theguy theguy@notebook.com wrote a whole load of infantile rubbish not worth responding to. huw ah and yet you just did. i thought that might happen. so even you the author do not deny it was infantile rubbish. that is most informative in itself. huw now how does even a brit like you come up with that interpretation .

From : theguy

on sat 11 feb 2006 221102 +0000 pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote theguy wrote i mean come on. what has the uk done ran the largest empire in the history of the world for one. talk about today pooh butt not ancient history. the uk owns more of the us economy than any other country too. then you better hope we dont fuck it up. graham .

From : miles

huw wrote thats up to you but you are very much mistaken. they dont start towing these things until easter here though. lots of commercial towing as well with huge numbers of livestock trailers at certain times but generally all the time. thats commercial towing. any major highway in the usa is chocked full of commerical trailers daily year round. im not sure what your point is. there are far more recreational trailers in the usa than in the uk. no comparison. .

From : pooh bear

miles wrote there are far more recreational trailers in the usa than in the uk. given nearly 5x the population thats hardly surprising. graham .

From : arif khokar

richard sexton wrote arif khokar akhokar1234@wvu.edu wrote pooh bear wrote martin joseph wrote netscape version 4 is a dinosaur. upgrade. it works just fine for my groups requirements. but i use the browser as well. many websites will not be handled correctly by netscape 4.x and in my case caused the application to freeze. turn javascript off. this is a recording. look at the headers of my message. does it look like im using netscape 4.x to post iow i want to be able to post to usenet and browse the web using the same application ... hence why i use the mozilla suite. but your advice is sound for websites that can bypass the built-in pop-up blocker in mozilla and firefox. .

From : denny

on sun 5 feb 2006 173719 -0500 roy roy@home.net wrote on sun 05 feb 2006 105916 +0000 pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote arif khokar wrote theguy wrote well thanks for letting me know i missed one for the killfile. theguy is a truly class act . graham thank you graham err pooh bear. i wish that i could return the favor but then............ well.....you know. ya know im starting to get a visual on this pooh bear. i cant for the life of me undestand why a adult male would pick a chidlike name. but it is what it is. roy this being the internet why did you ever assume it was an adult male well ol pooh signs its posts graham. but what the hell does that prove anyway you turned out to be a pink rabbit although packing heat! bfg i dont think that is what graham aka pooh bear is packing though. fudge denny .

From : theguy

on mon 06 feb 2006 101309 gmt denny wddodge@woh.rr.com wrote on sun 5 feb 2006 173719 -0500 roy roy@home.net wrote on sun 05 feb 2006 105916 +0000 pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote arif khokar wrote theguy wrote well thanks for letting me know i missed one for the killfile. theguy is a truly class act . graham thank you graham err pooh bear. i wish that i could return the favor but then............ well.....you know. ya know im starting to get a visual on this pooh bear. i cant for the life of me undestand why a adult male would pick a chidlike name. but it is what it is. roy this being the internet why did you ever assume it was an adult male well ol pooh signs its posts graham. but what the hell does that prove anyway you turned out to be a pink rabbit although packing heat! bfg i dont think that is what graham aka pooh bear is packing though. fudge denny also notice i didnt top post those smilies! .

From : dtj

on sun 05 feb 2006 174928 -0500 jcr nospam@nospam.com wrote netscape version 4 is a dinosaur. upgrade. it works just fine for my groups requirements. upgrading for its own sake is a mugs game. you may want to review the laundry list of vulnerabilities that outdated software can expose your pc to. its really a best practices question. you might want to learn something about software before claiming intelligence about the subject you clearly do not have. early versions of browsers did not have the vulnerabilities current versions have. ie netscape and the rest have become more vulnerable not less. ************************* dave .

From : dori a schmetterling

what you dont worship firefox das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- ... i believe opera is also currently the best web standards compliant browser around. it does dislike some presumably ie specific code occasionally though. ... .

From : clare at snyder on ca

on fri 3 feb 2006 214501 +0000 utc richard@.vrx.net richard sexton wrote clarence at snyder dot on dot ca wrote now if putting almost five times the rated capacity on a truck isnt being hard on it what in your view is being hard on it canadian winters was this a trick question canadian winter is a joke so far this year. cant see any snow here where we would generally have several feet at this time. fair enough its barely sweater weather here right now. but that hasnt stopped the salt minions - we may actully have more salt and sand in the front yard right now that snow. i aint pulling the good cars out of the barn until salt season is over snow or no snow. well i just went up to the lower bruce for the weekend. green grass all the way up friday afternoon and nice weather for the wiarton willie festival - then the snow hit. by sunday morning we had 18 inches and the power went out about 8pm saturday.anouther 8 inches or more sonday and overnight to monday. we were snowed in. left monday about noon and got as far south as chesley - all roads in all directions were closed so we spent the night at my uncles place and managed to find open roads in a roundabout fashion to get back home middle of the afternoon today tuesday. .

From : clare at snyder on ca

on sat 4 feb 2006 012401 -0000 huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote miles wrote pooh bear wrote since we seem to be drifting back on-topic ill add that in the uk at least most users of light trucks tend to use proper commercial vehicles rather than pickups when they have a regular need to carry heavyish loads. most in the uk or much of europe do not have personal needs for hauling heavy loads as is common in the usa. 10000 lb+ rvs are very common in the usa. they tow them for recreational purposes. they dont want a commercial grade truck to do so. they want something that is comfortable for a family. in the uk recreational trailers are typically much smaller and lighter and thus little need for a high towing capacity family vehicle. if you have been here in summer or in rural areas any time you will know that there are a far higher proportion of vehicles towing over here than in the usa. yes both vehicle and load are lighter but the towed load is proportionate. the loads are heavy for the towing vehicle type and that is the cruicial comparison. pickups of the hilux type commonly tow 6600kgs legally and a bit more on the sly. cars of the ford modeo class tow caravans up to a ton and slightly more on dropside compact trailers. i regularly tow 4 tons behind my land cruiser and old land rover sometimes over long distances and this is *very* common. there are rather stringent rules for towing that kind of weight though and apart from certain excempt occupations it needs the fitting and use of a tachograph and all that goes with it. huw huw what is a long distance in the uk huw about 10 times around the whole bloomin island would get you half way across canada or the us of a. .

From : dtj

on mon 6 feb 2006 033822 +0000 utc richard@.vrx.net richard sexton wrote pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote perhaps you can enlighten me what vulnerabilities exist reading groups. i use opera for web browsing. my av is set to auto-update it normally does so daily and im using a recent version of zone alarm. if youre running xp youre vulnerable just by being connected to the net even if youre not doing anything. new vulnerabilities come out all the time and it takes ms a few days at least to fix them. and thats being kind. bzzzt. not if you have brains. fuck doesnt anyone understand the use of firewalls. ************************* dave .

From : pooh bear

dtj wrote on sun 05 feb 2006 174928 -0500 jcr nospam@nospam.com wrote netscape version 4 is a dinosaur. upgrade. it works just fine for my groups requirements. upgrading for its own sake is a mugs game. you may want to review the laundry list of vulnerabilities that outdated software can expose your pc to. its really a best practices question. you might want to learn something about software before claiming intelligence about the subject you clearly do not have. early versions of browsers did not have the vulnerabilities current versions have. ie netscape and the rest have become more vulnerable not less. may i recommend opera as a browser its now entirely free and doesnt have any advert banners that previously existed on the free version that may have put ppl off. includes a pop-up blocker as standard too. i believe opera is also currently the best web standards compliant browser around. it does dislike some presumably ie specific code occasionally though. i made the change about a month back because of that new ms vulnerability and havent regretted it. graham .

From : pooh bear

clare at snyder.on.ca wrote on sat 4 feb 2006 012401 -0000 huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote miles wrote pooh bear wrote since we seem to be drifting back on-topic ill add that in the uk at least most users of light trucks tend to use proper commercial vehicles rather than pickups when they have a regular need to carry heavyish loads. most in the uk or much of europe do not have personal needs for hauling heavy loads as is common in the usa. 10000 lb+ rvs are very common in the usa. they tow them for recreational purposes. they dont want a commercial grade truck to do so. they want something that is comfortable for a family. in the uk recreational trailers are typically much smaller and lighter and thus little need for a high towing capacity family vehicle. if you have been here in summer or in rural areas any time you will know that there are a far higher proportion of vehicles towing over here than in the usa. yes both vehicle and load are lighter but the towed load is proportionate. the loads are heavy for the towing vehicle type and that is the cruicial comparison. pickups of the hilux type commonly tow 6600kgs legally and a bit more on the sly. cars of the ford modeo class tow caravans up to a ton and slightly more on dropside compact trailers. i regularly tow 4 tons behind my land cruiser and old land rover sometimes over long distances and this is *very* common. there are rather stringent rules for towing that kind of weight though and apart from certain excempt occupations it needs the fitting and use of a tachograph and all that goes with it. huw huw what is a long distance in the uk huw about 10 times around the whole bloomin island would get you half way across canada or the us of a. well.....ill comment ..... my sisters place is 90 mi away and i find that a longer drive than id like. i have commuted to cambridge though for about a year . that was 46 mi ea way. out of peak hours travelling i hasten to add ! that would have been impossible unacceptable in the rush hour. graham .

From : richard sexton

dtj none@nowhere.com wrote on mon 6 feb 2006 033822 +0000 utc richard@.vrx.net richard sexton wrote pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote perhaps you can enlighten me what vulnerabilities exist reading groups. i use opera for web browsing. my av is set to auto-update it normally does so daily and im using a recent version of zone alarm. if youre running xp youre vulnerable just by being connected to the net even if youre not doing anything. new vulnerabilities come out all the time and it takes ms a few days at least to fix them. and thats being kind. bzzzt. not if you have brains. fuck doesnt anyone understand the use of firewalls. sure i do but when i have to spend more time protecting the os than using the os i switch. mac/osx or freebsd from now on. bye bye winblows. -- need mercedes parts - http//parts.mbz.org richard sexton | mercedes stuff http//mbz.org 1970 280se 72 280se | home page http//rs79.vrx.net 633csi 250se/c 300sd | http//aquaria.net http//killi.net .

From : richard sexton

well.....ill comment ..... my sisters place is 90 mi away and i find that a longer drive than id like. i have commuted to cambridge though for about a year . that was 46 mi ea way. out of peak hours travelling i hasten to add ! that would have been impossible unacceptable in the rush hour. how quaint. we think nothing of driving 125 miles each way for lunch over ere. theres no good sushi locally -- need mercedes parts - http//parts.mbz.org richard sexton | mercedes stuff http//mbz.org 1970 280se 72 280se | home page http//rs79.vrx.net 633csi 250se/c 300sd | http//aquaria.net http//killi.net .

From : clare at snyder on ca

on wed 8 feb 2006 015005 +0000 utc richard@.vrx.net richard sexton wrote well.....ill comment ..... my sisters place is 90 mi away and i find that a longer drive than id like. i have commuted to cambridge though for about a year . that was 46 mi ea way. out of peak hours travelling i hasten to add ! that would have been impossible unacceptable in the rush hour. how quaint. we think nothing of driving 125 miles each way for lunch over ere. theres no good sushi locally not at all out of the ordinary to commute 75 miles each way during rush hour to and from work on a daily basis over here. a friend left for work at 5 am every workday for almost 10 years and returned hone after 6pm just to put in an 8 hour day. kitchener to downtown toronto. neighbor does the kitchener to mississauga trip daily - thats just over 95km each way. not for me!!! .

From : richard sexton

not at all out of the ordinary to commute 75 miles each way during rush hour to and from work on a daily basis over here. a friend left for work at 5 am every workday for almost 10 years and returned hone after 6pm just to put in an 8 hour day. kitchener to downtown toronto. neighbor does the kitchener to mississauga trip daily - thats just over 95km each way. not for me!!! ive done that but the other way. commute to ncr in waterloo from the east end of toronto. i file this under commutes from hell right up there with palos verdes to baldwin spit park. hour and a half each way. i work from home now. commuting time is just lost and wasted and you can never get it back. -- need mercedes parts - http//parts.mbz.org richard sexton | mercedes stuff http//mbz.org 1970 280se 72 280se | home page http//rs79.vrx.net 633csi 250se/c 300sd | http//aquaria.net http//killi.net .

From : clare at snyder on ca

on tue 07 feb 2006 233705 +0000 pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote clare at snyder.on.ca wrote on sat 4 feb 2006 012401 -0000 huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote miles wrote pooh bear wrote since we seem to be drifting back on-topic ill add that in the uk at least most users of light trucks tend to use proper commercial vehicles rather than pickups when they have a regular need to carry heavyish loads. most in the uk or much of europe do not have personal needs for hauling heavy loads as is common in the usa. 10000 lb+ rvs are very common in the usa. they tow them for recreational purposes. they dont want a commercial grade truck to do so. they want something that is comfortable for a family. in the uk recreational trailers are typically much smaller and lighter and thus little need for a high towing capacity family vehicle. if you have been here in summer or in rural areas any time you will know that there are a far higher proportion of vehicles towing over here than in the usa. yes both vehicle and load are lighter but the towed load is proportionate. the loads are heavy for the towing vehicle type and that is the cruicial comparison. pickups of the hilux type commonly tow 6600kgs legally and a bit more on the sly. cars of the ford modeo class tow caravans up to a ton and slightly more on dropside compact trailers. i regularly tow 4 tons behind my land cruiser and old land rover sometimes over long distances and this is *very* common. there are rather stringent rules for towing that kind of weight though and apart from certain excempt occupations it needs the fitting and use of a tachograph and all that goes with it. huw huw what is a long distance in the uk huw about 10 times around the whole bloomin island would get you half way across canada or the us of a. well.....ill comment ..... my sisters place is 90 mi away and i find that a longer drive than id like. i have commuted to cambridge though for about a year . that was 46 mi ea way. out of peak hours travelling i hasten to add ! that would have been impossible unacceptable in the rush hour. graham like i said - britts dont know what a long drive is. many canadians and americans routinely drive 300 miles each way weekends to their vacation homes. a holiday drive of 1500 miles is not at all out of the ordinary one summer we did a small circuit of ontario - never left the province and never retraced our steps - and put on 1500 miles in 10 days- while spending 2 days at each of 2 parks and 3 days at the third as well as visiting several tourist spots as day users. all towing a camping trailer. just this past weekend we drove about 180 miles to a friends cottage - and got snowed in about 2 feet of snow where we were basically overnight - 2 1/2 feet a few miles south and we just managed to get home this afternoon. one stretch of road was about 40 miles without a bend and most of the way you could not see the road or anything less than 6 feet above the ground. spent 40 minutes digging out when we misjudged the location of the road and ended up while still on the road stuck in snow higher than the bonnet. no 4 wheel drive no truck. just a little camry. .

From : christopher thompson

on wed 8 feb 2006 015005 +0000 utc richard@.vrx.net richard sexton wrote well.....ill comment ..... my sisters place is 90 mi away and i find that a longer drive than id like. i have commuted to cambridge though for about a year . that was 46 mi ea way. out of peak hours travelling i hasten to add ! that would have been impossible unacceptable in the rush hour. how quaint. we think nothing of driving 125 miles each way for lunch over ere. theres no good sushi locally not at all out of the ordinary to commute 75 miles each way during rush hour to and from work on a daily basis over here. a friend left for work at 5 am every workday for almost 10 years and returned hone after 6pm just to put in an 8 hour day. kitchener to downtown toronto. neighbor does the kitchener to mississauga trip daily - thats just over 95km each way. not for me!!! shoot we have guys that work in our factory on the south side of macon that commute from the north side of atlanta. sheesh! through atlanta then another hour or so to the plant after your through that hell. work 12 hours and drive back....these guys are tough! -- -chris 05 ctd 99 durango .

From : clare at snyder on ca

on wed 8 feb 2006 032052 +0000 utc richard@.vrx.net richard sexton wrote not at all out of the ordinary to commute 75 miles each way during rush hour to and from work on a daily basis over here. a friend left for work at 5 am every workday for almost 10 years and returned hone after 6pm just to put in an 8 hour day. kitchener to downtown toronto. neighbor does the kitchener to mississauga trip daily - thats just over 95km each way. not for me!!! ive done that but the other way. commute to ncr in waterloo from the east end of toronto. i file this under commutes from hell right up there with palos verdes to baldwin spit park. hour and a half each way. i work from home now. commuting time is just lost and wasted and you can never get it back. if you can do scarboonie to waterloo in an hour and a half you are doing very well. i live about a mile from ncr and used to have to drive to toyota on bellamy rd about once a month. .

From : richard sexton

clarence at snyder dot on dot ca wrote on wed 8 feb 2006 032052 +0000 utc richard@.vrx.net richard sexton wrote ive done that but the other way. commute to ncr in waterloo from the east end of toronto. i file this under commutes from hell right up there with palos verdes to baldwin spit park. hour and a half each way. i work from home now. commuting time is just lost and wasted and you can never get it back. if you can do scarboonie to waterloo in an hour and a half you are doing very well. i live about a mile from ncr and used to have to drive to toyota on bellamy rd about once a month. pape and danforth actually nor scarborough. golly i must have been speeding. how bout that. that was 16 years ago though. we moved out to the country 10 years ago. -- need mercedes parts - http//parts.mbz.org richard sexton | mercedes stuff http//mbz.org 1970 280se 72 280se | home page http//rs79.vrx.net 633csi 250se/c 300sd | http//aquaria.net http//killi.net .

From : pooh bear

richard sexton wrote well.....ill comment ..... my sisters place is 90 mi away and i find that a longer drive than id like. i have commuted to cambridge though for about a year . that was 46 mi ea way. out of peak hours travelling i hasten to add ! that would have been impossible unacceptable in the rush hour. how quaint. we think nothing of driving 125 miles each way for lunch over ere. you must have very relaxed work practices to allow 4 hours driving to go to lunch ! graham .

From : pooh bear

christopher thompson wrote shoot we have guys that work in our factory on the south side of macon that commute from the north side of atlanta. sheesh! through atlanta then another hour or so to the plant after your through that hell. work 12 hours and drive back....these guys are tough! they may be tough but ill bet youre not getting the best out of them. theres more to life than machismo. graham .

From : dori a schmetterling

ok whats the official average annual mileage for any region in na e.g. canada or ontario since we are in canada in this part of the thread. i bet it varies across the region depending on where one lives. i wonder if people living in the nyc/philadelphia areas e.g. drive less than those in the more remote areas. in uk it is 12 000 miles i think. das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- ... like i said - britts dont know what a long drive is. many canadians ... .

From : guenter scholz

for canada and probably most places in the world 20k km is considered average. i note that thats just a tad over the 12k miles you suggest for gb cheers guenter dori a schmetterling ng@nospam.co.uk wrote ok whats the official average annual mileage for any region in na e.g. canada or ontario since we are in canada in this part of the thread. i bet it varies across the region depending on where one lives. i wonder if people living in the nyc/philadelphia areas e.g. drive less than those in the more remote areas. in uk it is 12 000 miles i think. das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- ... like i said - britts dont know what a long drive is. many canadians ... .

From : richard sexton

pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote richard sexton wrote well.....ill comment ..... my sisters place is 90 mi away and i find that a longer drive than id like. i have commuted to cambridge though for about a year . that was 46 mi ea way. out of peak hours travelling i hasten to add ! that would have been impossible unacceptable in the rush hour. how quaint. we think nothing of driving 125 miles each way for lunch over ere. you must have very relaxed work practices to allow 4 hours driving to go to lunch ! i meant dinner actually. -- need mercedes parts - http//parts.mbz.org richard sexton | mercedes stuff http//mbz.org 1970 280se 72 280se | home page http//rs79.vrx.net 633csi 250se/c 300sd | http//aquaria.net http//killi.net .

From : richard sexton

dori a schmetterling ng@nospam.co.uk wrote ok whats the official average annual mileage for any region in na e.g. canada or ontario since we are in canada in this part of the thread. i bet it varies across the region depending on where one lives. i wonder if people living in the nyc/philadelphia areas e.g. drive less than those in the more remote areas. in uk it is 12 000 miles i think. its 15k here but most people live in cities. im 40 miles from the closest one. if i look out my windoew i see 300 acres of forest a river and two waterfalls. this place has a barn big enough for 6 cars and when we moved here there was a garage pretty much across the road. clsoed now. pity. -- need mercedes parts - http//parts.mbz.org richard sexton | mercedes stuff http//mbz.org 1970 280se 72 280se | home page http//rs79.vrx.net 633csi 250se/c 300sd | http//aquaria.net http//killi.net .

From : huw

dori a schmetterling ng@nospam.co.uk wrote ok whats the official average annual mileage for any region in na e.g. canada or ontario since we are in canada in this part of the thread. i bet it varies across the region depending on where one lives. i wonder if people living in the nyc/philadelphia areas e.g. drive less than those in the more remote areas. in uk it is 12 000 miles i think. its 15k here but most people live in cities. im 40 miles from the closest one. if i look out my windoew i see 300 acres of forest a river and two waterfalls. this place has a barn big enough for 6 cars and when we moved here there was a garage pretty much across the road. clsoed now. pity. my barn is bigger than yours lol. it can hold 15 articulated wagons with 40ft trailers at any one time. and thats a fact. you see two can play that game and you need to be sure that yours is actually bigger to be sure of winning. huw .

From : richard sexton

huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote my barn is bigger than yours lol. it can hold 15 articulated wagons with 40ft trailers at any one time. and thats a fact. you see two can play that game and you need to be sure that yours is actually bigger to be sure of winning. im sure your barn is bigger but im not intrerested in winning anything im just pointing out why i dont live in a city despite the distance invoved. -- need mercedes parts - http//parts.mbz.org richard sexton | mercedes stuff http//mbz.org 1970 280se 72 280se | home page http//rs79.vrx.net 633csi 250se/c 300sd | http//aquaria.net http//killi.net .

From : huw

on sat 4 feb 2006 012401 -0000 huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote miles wrote pooh bear wrote since we seem to be drifting back on-topic ill add that in the uk at least most users of light trucks tend to use proper commercial vehicles rather than pickups when they have a regular need to carry heavyish loads. most in the uk or much of europe do not have personal needs for hauling heavy loads as is common in the usa. 10000 lb+ rvs are very common in the usa. they tow them for recreational purposes. they dont want a commercial grade truck to do so. they want something that is comfortable for a family. in the uk recreational trailers are typically much smaller and lighter and thus little need for a high towing capacity family vehicle. if you have been here in summer or in rural areas any time you will know that there are a far higher proportion of vehicles towing over here than in the usa. yes both vehicle and load are lighter but the towed load is proportionate. the loads are heavy for the towing vehicle type and that is the cruicial comparison. pickups of the hilux type commonly tow 6600kgs legally and a bit more on the sly. cars of the ford modeo class tow caravans up to a ton and slightly more on dropside compact trailers. i regularly tow 4 tons behind my land cruiser and old land rover sometimes over long distances and this is *very* common. there are rather stringent rules for towing that kind of weight though and apart from certain excempt occupations it needs the fitting and use of a tachograph and all that goes with it. huw huw what is a long distance in the uk huw about 10 times around the whole bloomin island would get you half way across canada or the us of a. a long distance for me is anything over 300 miles in a day. what is it for you huw .

From : huw

like i said - britts dont know what a long drive is. ah! back to the perrenial mine is bigger than yours arguement. very original. many canadians and americans routinely drive 300 miles each way weekends to their vacation homes. a holiday drive of 1500 miles is not at all out of the ordinary one summer we did a small circuit of ontario - never left the province and never retraced our steps - and put on 1500 miles in 10 days- while spending 2 days at each of 2 parks and 3 days at the third as well as visiting several tourist spots as day users. all towing a camping trailer. done that myself. actually 1800 miles in seven days with a 24ft caravan behind. no problem. just this past weekend we drove about 180 miles to a friends cottage - and got snowed in about 2 feet of snow where we were basically overnight - 2 1/2 feet a few miles south and we just managed to get home this afternoon. one stretch of road was about 40 miles without a bend and most of the way you could not see the road or anything less than 6 feet above the ground. spent 40 minutes digging out when we misjudged the location of the road and ended up while still on the road stuck in snow higher than the bonnet. no 4 wheel drive no truck. just a little camry. i dont know what in hell you think is so unique about your conditions. i have over a 200 mile round trip to music concerts and i do them after six pm and get back before 2am. nothing unusual. i travel in excess of 20000 miles per annum in my business vehicle alone and my wife and i also put in another 18000 miles in our private range rover. nothing unusual. i have a friend who does in excess of 50000 business miles per year all in the uk. that would be considered high mileage. huw .

From : richard sexton

i dont know what in hell you think is so unique about your conditions. i have over a 200 mile round trip to music concerts and i do them after six pm and get back before 2am. nothing unusual. i travel in excess of 20000 miles per annum in my business vehicle alone and my wife and i also put in another 18000 miles in our private range rover. nothing unusual. i have a friend who does in excess of 50000 business miles per year all in the uk. that would be considered high mileage. i think the point the op made is that the uk would fit in the state of rhode island or some such thing. distances involved in the uk and europe are different than north america. what would be a normal drive to say go buy a table or chair here would in europe be the same as driving across 3 borders when its the same distance. and while you may rack up high miles you are the exception not the rule. i remember the day ok im dating myself when cardiff to londo was a day trip. now i go that far to buy crickets for my kids lizard and think nothing of it. -- need mercedes parts - http//parts.mbz.org richard sexton | mercedes stuff http//mbz.org 1970 280se 72 280se | home page http//rs79.vrx.net 633csi 250se/c 300sd | http//aquaria.net http//killi.net .

From : huw

huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote my barn is bigger than yours lol. it can hold 15 articulated wagons with 40ft trailers at any one time. and thats a fact. you see two can play that game and you need to be sure that yours is actually bigger to be sure of winning. im sure your barn is bigger but im not intrerested in winning anything im just pointing out why i dont live in a city despite the distance invoved. then why mention the size or assume about driving distances. you cannot generalise. i have friends who have holiday homes in the south of france and they regularly drive both ways. i do not know how far that is and would not presume to compare it with your mileage. huw .

From : huw

i dont know what in hell you think is so unique about your conditions. i have over a 200 mile round trip to music concerts and i do them after six pm and get back before 2am. nothing unusual. i travel in excess of 20000 miles per annum in my business vehicle alone and my wife and i also put in another 18000 miles in our private range rover. nothing unusual. i have a friend who does in excess of 50000 business miles per year all in the uk. that would be considered high mileage. i think the point the op made is that the uk would fit in the state of rhode island or some such thing. distances involved in the uk and europe are different than north america. what would be a normal drive to say go buy a table or chair here would in europe be the same as driving across 3 borders when its the same distance. and while you may rack up high miles you are the exception not the rule. i remember the day ok im dating myself when cardiff to londo was a day trip. now i go that far to buy crickets for my kids lizard and think nothing of it. i am far from exceptional. i am not the old boy who just drives to the other side of the village to fetch a paper but i would certainly not presume to be anything like exceptional. for a start most of my mileage is actually within wales. if you actually travel 200 miles for the purpose you describe then you really need to reassess lifes priorities ;- huw .

From : clare at snyder on ca

on wed 8 feb 2006 062114 +0000 utc richard@.vrx.net richard sexton wrote clarence at snyder dot on dot ca wrote on wed 8 feb 2006 032052 +0000 utc richard@.vrx.net richard sexton wrote ive done that but the other way. commute to ncr in waterloo from the east end of toronto. i file this under commutes from hell right up there with palos verdes to baldwin spit park. hour and a half each way. i work from home now. commuting time is just lost and wasted and you can never get it back. if you can do scarboonie to waterloo in an hour and a half you are doing very well. i live about a mile from ncr and used to have to drive to toyota on bellamy rd about once a month. pape and danforth actually nor scarborough. golly i must have been speeding. how bout that. that was 16 years ago though. we moved out to the country 10 years ago. travel time from pope and danforth to waterloo has likely doubled in the last 10 years. .

From : clare at snyder on ca

on wed 8 feb 2006 155036 +0000 utc scholz@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca guenter scholz wrote for canada and probably most places in the world 20k km is considered average. i note that thats just a tad over the 12k miles you suggest for gb cheers guenter actually it has gone up over the last 10 years 20000km per year is now considered to be low mileage. a 5 year old car with only 100000 km is a low mileage used car. average 5 year old car on the lot here has 150-180 thousand kms on it. dori a schmetterling ng@nospam.co.uk wrote ok whats the official average annual mileage for any region in na e.g. canada or ontario since we are in canada in this part of the thread. i bet it varies across the region depending on where one lives. i wonder if people living in the nyc/philadelphia areas e.g. drive less than those in the more remote areas. in uk it is 12 000 miles i think. das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- ... like i said - britts dont know what a long drive is. many canadians ... .

From : clare at snyder on ca

on wed 8 feb 2006 181350 -0000 huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote like i said - britts dont know what a long drive is. ah! back to the perrenial mine is bigger than yours arguement. very original. many canadians and americans routinely drive 300 miles each way weekends to their vacation homes. a holiday drive of 1500 miles is not at all out of the ordinary one summer we did a small circuit of ontario - never left the province and never retraced our steps - and put on 1500 miles in 10 days- while spending 2 days at each of 2 parks and 3 days at the third as well as visiting several tourist spots as day users. all towing a camping trailer. done that myself. actually 1800 miles in seven days with a 24ft caravan behind. no problem. huw - you are missing the point. if you want to go for records try 1770 km in 18 hours - non stop. or 3521 km in 42 hours in the dead of winter - including an 8 hour rest stop. - for personal not business purposes. just this past weekend we drove about 180 miles to a friends cottage - and got snowed in about 2 feet of snow where we were basically overnight - 2 1/2 feet a few miles south and we just managed to get home this afternoon. one stretch of road was about 40 miles without a bend and most of the way you could not see the road or anything less than 6 feet above the ground. spent 40 minutes digging out when we misjudged the location of the road and ended up while still on the road stuck in snow higher than the bonnet. no 4 wheel drive no truck. just a little camry. i dont know what in hell you think is so unique about your conditions. i have over a 200 mile round trip to music concerts and i do them after six pm and get back before 2am. nothing unusual. we can do that here too if we choose to. i travel in excess of 20000 miles per annum in my business vehicle alone and my wife and i also put in another 18000 miles in our private range rover. nothing unusual. i have a friend who does in excess of 50000 business miles per year all in the uk. that would be considered high mileage. for business purposes just to and from work many drive 56000 miles a year. thats not business miles. i know of lots of cars putting on well in excess of 80000 per year for business purposes calling on clients or doing light delivery courier service. never leaving the province of ontario - or even southern ontario south of say barrie huw .

From : richard sexton

then why mention the size or assume about driving distances. you cannot generalise. i have friends who have holiday homes in the south of france and they regularly drive both ways. i do not know how far that is and would not presume to compare it with your mileage. because ive lived in the uk and ive lived in canada and ive lived in the us and know the difference. you a drive from london to madrid is the same distance as toronto to atlanta. half as much again and youre in florida. while ive known people that have driven that for the wekend thats no more the norm than a holiday home in spain for most people. again one can drive that distance and still be in ontario. the scale of how far you *routinly* travel is much much larger in north america than yurrup or the uk. -- need mercedes parts - http//parts.mbz.org richard sexton | mercedes stuff http//mbz.org 1970 280se 72 280se | home page http//rs79.vrx.net 633csi 250se/c 300sd | http//aquaria.net http//killi.net .

From : richard sexton

i am far from exceptional. i am not the old boy who just drives to the other side of the village to fetch a paper but i would certainly not presume to be anything like exceptional. for a start most of my mileage is actually within wales. how! what do you do wake up go to ponty with a circuitous route through the rhondda back home repeat did wales anex russia or something when i wasnt looking i dont rememeber it being that big when i left. looks at map no its still not much bigger than toronto. - -- need mercedes parts - http//parts.mbz.org richard sexton | mercedes stuff http//mbz.org 1970 280se 72 280se | home page http//rs79.vrx.net 633csi 250se/c 300sd | http//aquaria.net http//killi.net .

From : richard sexton

travel time from pope and danforth to waterloo has likely doubled in the last 10 years. bloody ell. mercifully belleville to toronto hasnt but you do have to pick your times. 3 am is good. -- need mercedes parts - http//parts.mbz.org richard sexton | mercedes stuff http//mbz.org 1970 280se 72 280se | home page http//rs79.vrx.net 633csi 250se/c 300sd | http//aquaria.net http//killi.net .

From : clare at snyder on ca

on wed 8 feb 2006 180544 -0000 huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote on sat 4 feb 2006 012401 -0000 huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote miles wrote pooh bear wrote since we seem to be drifting back on-topic ill add that in the uk at least most users of light trucks tend to use proper commercial vehicles rather than pickups when they have a regular need to carry heavyish loads. most in the uk or much of europe do not have personal needs for hauling heavy loads as is common in the usa. 10000 lb+ rvs are very common in the usa. they tow them for recreational purposes. they dont want a commercial grade truck to do so. they want something that is comfortable for a family. in the uk recreational trailers are typically much smaller and lighter and thus little need for a high towing capacity family vehicle. if you have been here in summer or in rural areas any time you will know that there are a far higher proportion of vehicles towing over here than in the usa. yes both vehicle and load are lighter but the towed load is proportionate. the loads are heavy for the towing vehicle type and that is the cruicial comparison. pickups of the hilux type commonly tow 6600kgs legally and a bit more on the sly. cars of the ford modeo class tow caravans up to a ton and slightly more on dropside compact trailers. i regularly tow 4 tons behind my land cruiser and old land rover sometimes over long distances and this is *very* common. there are rather stringent rules for towing that kind of weight though and apart from certain excempt occupations it needs the fitting and use of a tachograph and all that goes with it. huw huw what is a long distance in the uk huw about 10 times around the whole bloomin island would get you half way across canada or the us of a. a long distance for me is anything over 300 miles in a day. what is it for you huw driving from waterloo ontario to prince edward island 1770 km in one day is a long trip. or driving to montreal and back 1286 km. or driving to winnipeg 2155 km in 2 days. heck waterloo to windsor and back in the same day 587km is starting to get a bit tedious but is not a long trip. waterloo to banff in 2 days - thats a long trip. waterloo to lakeland florida thats a long trip. but none are terribly out of the ordinary for me in years past. vic falls zambia to luapula province zambia now that is a long trip even spread over 3 days. particularly in the rainy season. worse conditions than what i generally encounter here in canada. howevereven 170 km from wiarton to waterloo is a long trip when theres a good foot of snow on the road surface and you cant see 500 feet in front of you like the trip this weekend!!!shovelling the car not a 4wd out of snow banks just makes the trip longer. 300 miles a day in decent weather naa thats not a long trip at all. .

From : huw

max dodge max340@verizon.net wrote false light rail transit in urban centers is not long distance nor is it city to city yet it is still efficient. fuel use comparison for train vs trucks buses and motor cars. http//www.transwatch.co.uk/transport-fact-sheet-5.htm the index for all fact sheets can be found here. http//www.transwatch.co.uk/fact-sheets.htm a nice accurate summary can be found here http//www.spiked-online.com/articles/0000000caf2c.htm huw .

From : huw

then why mention the size or assume about driving distances. you cannot generalise. i have friends who have holiday homes in the south of france and they regularly drive both ways. i do not know how far that is and would not presume to compare it with your mileage. because ive lived in the uk and ive lived in canada and ive lived in the us and know the difference. you i have seen your average mileage quoted and there is not much difference. average doesnt mean much in either place except as a measure of the hours spent behind the wheel in various locations and despite your protestations there is not a whole lot of difference. it is interesting to note the psyche that *needs* to believe that mine is bigger/better/longer/further than yours. huw a drive from london to madrid is the same distance as toronto to atlanta. half as much again and youre in florida. while ive known people that have driven that for the wekend thats no more the norm than a holiday home in spain for most people. again one can drive that distance and still be in ontario. the scale of how far you *routinly* travel is much much larger in north america than yurrup or the uk. -- need mercedes parts - http//parts.mbz.org richard sexton | mercedes stuff http//mbz.org 1970 280se 72 280se | home page http//rs79.vrx.net 633csi 250se/c 300sd | http//aquaria.net http//killi.net .

From : huw

i am far from exceptional. i am not the old boy who just drives to the other side of the village to fetch a paper but i would certainly not presume to be anything like exceptional. for a start most of my mileage is actually within wales. how! what do you do wake up go to ponty with a circuitous route through the rhondda back home repeat did wales anex russia or something when i wasnt looking i dont rememeber it being that big when i left. looks at map no its still not much bigger than toronto. - hint my business mileage is about 500 miles per week which i dont consider much. today i did aberystwyth to dale 15 miles southwest of haverfordwest which was about 175 miles total round with a 16ft trailer and two tons on it for half the journey. started at 1pm and back for 6pm. tomorrow at some point i will hit brecon. my daily drive is a toyota land cruiser 4.2. huw .

From : huw

on wed 8 feb 2006 181350 -0000 huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote like i said - britts dont know what a long drive is. ah! back to the perrenial mine is bigger than yours arguement. very original. many canadians and americans routinely drive 300 miles each way weekends to their vacation homes. a holiday drive of 1500 miles is not at all out of the ordinary one summer we did a small circuit of ontario - never left the province and never retraced our steps - and put on 1500 miles in 10 days- while spending 2 days at each of 2 parks and 3 days at the third as well as visiting several tourist spots as day users. all towing a camping trailer. done that myself. actually 1800 miles in seven days with a 24ft caravan behind. no problem. huw - you are missing the point. if you want to go for records try 1770 km in 18 hours - non stop. or 3521 km in 42 hours in the dead of winter - including an 8 hour rest stop. - for personal not business purposes. for business purposes just to and from work many drive 56000 miles a year. thats not business miles. i know of lots of cars putting on well in excess of 80000 per year for business purposes calling on clients or doing light delivery courier service. never leaving the province of ontario - or even southern ontario south of say barrie no it is you that is missing the point. i dont consider my mileage to be particularly out of the ordinary. it is you that makes that kind of claim repeated above. bigger/better/longer remember huw for business purposes just to and from work many drive 56000 miles a year. thats not business miles. i know of lots of cars putting on well in excess of 80000 per year for business purposes calling on clients or doing light delivery courier service. never leaving the province of ontario - or even southern ontario south of say barrie .

From : steve

richard sexton wrote then why mention the size or assume about driving distances. you cannot generalise. i have friends who have holiday homes in the south of france and they regularly drive both ways. i do not know how far that is and would not presume to compare it with your mileage. because ive lived in the uk and ive lived in canada and ive lived in the us and know the difference. you a drive from london to madrid is the same distance as toronto to atlanta. and thats only about 150 miles further than orange texas to el paso texas travelling interstate 10 all the way. .

From : floyd rogers

huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote floyd rogers fbloogyudsr@hotmail.com wrote huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote richard sexton richard@.vrx.net wrote i have seen your average mileage quoted and there is not much difference. average doesnt mean much in either place except as a measure of the hours spent behind the wheel in various locations and despite your protestations there is not a whole lot of difference. imo a per capita average mileage would be more instructive than average per car. btw my average on my primary car is around 18k miles. and i dont even commute - no job. a bit of a waster then in more ways than one considering that about 1/3 of that mileage is in support of volunteer efforts for charitable organizations your characterization of waster is entirely inappropriate. most of the rest is for traveling between my three homes - us retired people have more free time to travel than you businessmen. floydr .

From : richard sexton

clarence at snyder dot on dot ca wrote one day is a long trip. or driving to montreal and back 1286 km. or driving to winnipeg 2155 km in 2 days. heck waterloo to windsor and back in the same day 587km is starting to get a bit tedious but is not a long trip. waterloo to banff in 2 days - thats a long trip. waterloo to lakeland florida thats a long trip. but none are terribly out of the ordinary for me in years past. vic falls zambia to luapula province zambia now that is a long trip bah. luxury. try getting to bafole in cameroon. roads vass iss mit roads -- need mercedes parts - http//parts.mbz.org richard sexton | mercedes stuff http//mbz.org 1970 280se 72 280se | home page http//rs79.vrx.net 633csi 250se/c 300sd | http//aquaria.net http//killi.net .

From : richard sexton

huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote because ive lived in the uk and ive lived in canada and ive lived in the us and know the difference. you i have seen your average mileage quoted and there is not much difference. average doesnt mean much in either place except as a measure of the hours spent behind the wheel in various locations and despite your protestations there is not a whole lot of difference. dude we have more fucking space than you do. look at a map if you dont believe me. our cities are farther apart and we have lakes the sizes of european countriesi in the way. it is interesting to note the psyche that *needs* to believe that mine is bigger/better/longer/further than yours. im sure with therapy you can get over this. theres probably pills you can take too. now take your fbe hat off. -- need mercedes parts - http//parts.mbz.org richard sexton | mercedes stuff http//mbz.org 1970 280se 72 280se | home page http//rs79.vrx.net 633csi 250se/c 300sd | http//aquaria.net http//killi.net .

From : richard sexton

huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote hint my business mileage is about 500 miles per week which i dont consider much. today i did aberystwyth to dale 15 miles southwest of haverfordwest which was about 175 miles total round with a 16ft trailer and two tons on it for half the journey. started at 1pm and back for 6pm. tomorrow at some point i will hit brecon. phawr. pics -- need mercedes parts - http//parts.mbz.org richard sexton | mercedes stuff http//mbz.org 1970 280se 72 280se | home page http//rs79.vrx.net 633csi 250se/c 300sd | http//aquaria.net http//killi.net .

From : floyd rogers

huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote richard sexton richard@.vrx.net wrote i have seen your average mileage quoted and there is not much difference. average doesnt mean much in either place except as a measure of the hours spent behind the wheel in various locations and despite your protestations there is not a whole lot of difference. imo a per capita average mileage would be more instructive than average per car. btw my average on my primary car is around 18k miles. and i dont even commute - no job. floydr .

From : huw

huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote richard sexton richard@.vrx.net wrote i have seen your average mileage quoted and there is not much difference. average doesnt mean much in either place except as a measure of the hours spent behind the wheel in various locations and despite your protestations there is not a whole lot of difference. imo a per capita average mileage would be more instructive than average per car. btw my average on my primary car is around 18k miles. and i dont even commute - no job. a bit of a waster then in more ways than one huw .

From : theguy

on wed 08 feb 2006 080937 +0000 pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote christopher thompson wrote shoot we have guys that work in our factory on the south side of macon that commute from the north side of atlanta. sheesh! through atlanta then another hour or so to the plant after your through that hell. work 12 hours and drive back....these guys are tough! they may be tough but ill bet youre not getting the best out of them. theres more to life than machismo. graham you better hope so. .

From : clare at snyder on ca

on thu 9 feb 2006 011126 +0000 utc richard@.vrx.net richard sexton wrote clarence at snyder dot on dot ca wrote one day is a long trip. or driving to montreal and back 1286 km. or driving to winnipeg 2155 km in 2 days. heck waterloo to windsor and back in the same day 587km is starting to get a bit tedious but is not a long trip. waterloo to banff in 2 days - thats a long trip. waterloo to lakeland florida thats a long trip. but none are terribly out of the ordinary for me in years past. vic falls zambia to luapula province zambia now that is a long trip bah. luxury. try getting to bafole in cameroon. roads vass iss mit roads try to get to fabedougou burkina faso. the road ends about 4k from the village. .

From : huw

having flogged this horse to its constituant atoms is it now time to compare the price of fuel and bitch about that for a month oh yes please! the uk has a bigger gallon and a bigger price per gallon. suck that! - huw .

From : huw

floyd rogers fbloogyudsr@hotmail.com wrote a bit of a waster then in more ways than one considering that about 1/3 of that mileage is in support of volunteer efforts for charitable organizations your characterization of waster is entirely inappropriate. most of the rest is for traveling between my three homes - us retired people have more free time to travel than you businessmen. i was just asking. huw .

From : huw

huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote because ive lived in the uk and ive lived in canada and ive lived in the us and know the difference. you i have seen your average mileage quoted and there is not much difference. average doesnt mean much in either place except as a measure of the hours spent behind the wheel in various locations and despite your protestations there is not a whole lot of difference. dude we have more fucking space than you do. look at a map if you dont believe me. our cities are farther apart and we have lakes the sizes of european countriesi in the way. it is obvious you have more space but that is not the point. it is interesting to note the psyche that *needs* to believe that mine is bigger/better/longer/further than yours. huw .

From : steve

huw wrote huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote because ive lived in the uk and ive lived in canada and ive lived in the us and know the difference. you i have seen your average mileage quoted and there is not much difference. average doesnt mean much in either place except as a measure of the hours spent behind the wheel in various locations and despite your protestations there is not a whole lot of difference. dude we have more fucking space than you do. look at a map if you dont believe me. our cities are farther apart and we have lakes the sizes of european countriesi in the way. it is obvious you have more space but that is not the point. it is interesting to note the psyche that *needs* to believe that mine is bigger/better/longer/further than yours. funny i never read this discussion as being bigger is better. its just that bigger is a fact of life and results in greater willingness to jump in a car and drive a few hundred miles at a crack in order to go see/do/visit or whatever. which results in a rather different profile of utilization for vehicles. .

From : dori a schmetterling

that is a typically texan comment... - what a big state i have... reminds me a story told long ago when a texan and a south african but you insert any number of other countries were arguing about the relative sizes of their states... towards the end the teaxan brags texas is so big that if you board a train at one end youre still in texas 24 hours later. answer yes yes we have slow trains like that too here... das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- ... and thats only about 150 miles further than orange texas to el paso texas travelling interstate 10 all the way. .

From : dori a schmetterling

how is that relevant to nub of the argument so far the best guesses we have for annual mileages in na and uk ae@ uk - 12 000 miles us/ca - 12 000 possibly 15 000 miles. the only way to determine whether mileages in na are very significanlty higher is to try to find firmer evidence for these numbers. if for example the 15k figure is confirmed for na and the uk figure not europe another thing altogether and of no meaning turns out to be 10k then we have a clear difference. i had a quick look on google for a uk figure but was unsuccessful so far. i also checked the rest of this section of this thread and i could only see a pissing contest but nationally or regionally valid averages. the comment by one poster about considering miles per person is interesting rather than miles per car but may not add much. it would certainly make the search for data harder. in my own case that might add maybe a guesstimated 25 - 30% to my very low annual mileage small is beautiful because of journeys in rented cars. das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- ...- funny i never read this discussion as being bigger is better. its just that bigger is a fact of life and results in greater willingness to jump in a car and drive a few hundred miles at a crack in order to go see/do/visit or whatever. which results in a rather different profile of utilization for vehicles. .

From : steve

huw wrote clare at snyder.on.ca wrote . 300 miles a day in decent weather naa thats not a long trip at all. 300 miles is taking it easy and seeing the roadside attractions. we used to run 500 miles/day towing a travel trailer on vacation circa 1975. bigger better and further eh. depends on your point of view.... my daughter hates riding for that long but my wife and i love seeing the country that way. .

From : dori a schmetterling

groan. das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- ... dialing 1 then area code before the number. -- need mercedes parts - http//parts.mbz.org richard sexton | mercedes stuff http//mbz.org 1970 280se 72 280se | home page http//rs79.vrx.net 633csi 250se/c 300sd | http//aquaria.net http//killi.net .

From : floyd rogers

dori a schmetterling ng@nospam.co.uk wrote i also checked the rest of this section of this thread and i could only see a pissing contest but nationally or regionally valid averages. the comment by one poster about considering miles per person is interesting rather than miles per car but may not add much. it would certainly make the search for data harder. in my own case that might add maybe a guesstimated 25 - 30% to my very low annual mileage small is beautiful because of journeys in rented cars. how about hours per capita/car one might speculate it would be closer in the eu/us - for instance inverness to london is around 12-13 hours for 580 miles which is about what the 800 miles seattle to san francisco takes. generally the us interstate system allows shorter times for long trips; even the secondary roads generally allow higher speeds than eu secondary roads. i agree that some are in a pissing contest - doesnt really matter since its a real apples-to-oranges comparison. floydr .

From : clare at snyder on ca

on thu 9 feb 2006 155452 -0000 dori a schmetterling ng@nospam.co.uk wrote how is that relevant to nub of the argument so far the best guesses we have for annual mileages in na and uk ae@ uk - 12 000 miles us/ca - 12 000 possibly 15 000 miles. the only way to determine whether mileages in na are very significanlty higher is to try to find firmer evidence for these numbers. if for example the 15k figure is confirmed for na and the uk figure not europe another thing altogether and of no meaning turns out to be 10k then we have a clear difference. i had a quick look on google for a uk figure but was unsuccessful so far. i also checked the rest of this section of this thread and i could only see a pissing contest but nationally or regionally valid averages. the comment by one poster about considering miles per person is interesting rather than miles per car but may not add much. it would certainly make the search for data harder. in my own case that might add maybe a guesstimated 25 - 30% to my very low annual mileage small is beautiful because of journeys in rented cars. das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- ...- funny i never read this discussion as being bigger is better. its just that bigger is a fact of life and results in greater willingness to jump in a car and drive a few hundred miles at a crack in order to go see/do/visit or whatever. which results in a rather different profile of utilization for vehicles. well my average miles per year over the last 15 years is considerably lower than average for our area as the office where i spend most of my time is only 7k from home and i make that round trip once a day. the local airport is only 15k from home if i need to travel internationally. my 12 year old van has 334000 km on it for an average of roughly 28000 km per year. over the last almost 3 years i have put on 58000 km on the van 20000km per year plus several thousand on my wifes car which really lowers the average with only 12000km per year average on it over 10 years the 58000 km in the last three years has included a quick trip to florida one to northern michigan one to central new york state and numerour trips around ontario. 5 years ago we made a fast trip to winnipeg and 10 years ago to bc. i travel a lot less than either of my neighbours. anyway whether harder on the car or not there are definite differences between the usage a car gets between wales and ontario. there are huge differences between the use they get in ontario and saskatchewan where you can watch your dog run away for a week and even between areas of ontario. here towns are spaced out every15 km or so often with villages interspersed between while in some areas you are litterally 50 miles from nowhere - to get to a town of any size to get something you need could be a 100 mile trip - one way. .

From : steve

dori a schmetterling wrote that is a typically texan comment... - what a big state i have... actually its a little further than that to go from san diego ca to crescent city ca on interstate 5... but dont let any californians know that i admitted this - reminds me a story told long ago when a texan and a south african but you insert any number of other countries were arguing about the relative sizes of their states... towards the end the teaxan brags texas is so big that if you board a train at one end youre still in texas 24 hours later. answer yes yes we have slow trains like that too here... sounds like amtrak. a friend of mine travelled by amtrak last year and told me that they were 20 hours late arriving on the way to their destination but only 18 hours late on the return trip -/ .

From : dori a schmetterling

individual anecdotes may be interesting but dont help with a conclusion about driving habits overall. with all this to-ing and fro-ing i have become almost interested in the subject i.e. whether north americans really do drive more p.a. than brits or indeed other western europeans. many british secondary non-motorway if that is what you mean roads are actually dual carriageway and pretty fast. they are just not quite at motorway standards different and fewer access points no small motorbicycles or pushbikes e.g. for a variety of reasons. would germans have a higher average mileage more motorways no physical borders except a small one with the north sea and baltic in the north... das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- ... well my average miles per year over the last 15 years is considerably lower than average for our area as the office where i spend most of my time is only 7k from home and i make that round trip once a day. the local airport is only 15k from home if i need to travel internationally. my 12 year old van has 334000 km on it for an average of roughly 28000 km per year. over the last almost 3 years i have put on 58000 km on the van 20000km per year plus several thousand on my wifes car which really lowers the average with only 12000km per year average on it over 10 years the 58000 km in the last three years has included a quick trip to florida one to northern michigan one to central new york state and numerour trips around ontario. 5 years ago we made a fast trip to winnipeg and 10 years ago to bc. i travel a lot less than either of my neighbours. anyway whether harder on the car or not there are definite differences between the usage a car gets between wales and ontario. there are huge differences between the use they get in ontario and saskatchewan where you can watch your dog run away for a week and even between areas of ontario. here towns are spaced out every15 km or so often with villages interspersed between while in some areas you are litterally 50 miles from nowhere - to get to a town of any size to get something you need could be a 100 mile trip - one way. .

From : steve

dori a schmetterling wrote how is that relevant to nub of the argument so far the best guesses we have for annual mileages in na and uk ae@ uk - 12 000 miles us/ca - 12 000 possibly 15 000 miles. i seriously doubt those us numbers. maybe if that is an average for all citizens including the vast number in new york chicago boston and san francisco that dont even own cars... but i dont know. it just feels wrong based on the fact that my annual mileage is between 20k and 25k and i have what is considered a rather short commute. .

From : pooh bear

theguy wrote on fri 10 feb 2006 022904 +0000 pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote theguy wrote i mean have we not had enough reminders of how totally fucking boring our friends in the uk are just think yourselves lucky that the us still has any friends. yeah graham poohy well just think that. yeah we sure will. i guess you could revert to splendid isolationism of course. did they teach you about that at your hick school btw. check out who owns your foreign bases before dissing your friends as you call us. graham .

From : pooh bear

bill putney wrote pooh bear wrote just think yourselves lucky that the us still has any friends. hey - to borrow a line from the movie short circuit with friends like you who needs enemas getting sore about a bit of well-intended criticism before any more idiotic middle east adventurism you guys might do well to see if your military can cope with it. curent signs suggest iraq alone is pushing it. of course being a bunch of pussies doesnt help. graham .

From : clare at snyder on ca

on thu 09 feb 2006 213551 +0000 pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote steve wrote a friend of mine travelled by amtrak last year and told me that they were 20 hours late arriving on the way to their destination but only 18 hours late on the return trip -/ how on earth can you run a railway like that graham if anyone was running it it wouldnt be like that. .

From : huw

steve no@spam.thanks wrote dori a schmetterling wrote how is that relevant to nub of the argument so far the best guesses we have for annual mileages in na and uk ae@ uk - 12 000 miles us/ca - 12 000 possibly 15 000 miles. i seriously doubt those us numbers. maybe if that is an average for all citizens including the vast number in new york chicago boston and san francisco that dont even own cars... but i dont know. it just feels wrong based on the fact that my annual mileage is between 20k and 25k and i have what is considered a rather short commute. listen if you dont believe the numbers find your own and cite them or stfu. here are the figures for the usa which actually shows only 11400 miles per car overall with midwestern states actually posting lower mileage at 10700 miles which goes very much against what has been implied by some posters here particularly steve and clare from canada. of course canada might be at variance but i doubt it. i have always assumed that mileage would not vary greatly from one country to another because it is primarily governed by the amount of *time* people feel comfortable devoting to what is essentially a waste of time. here is a reference to a comprehensive and authoritative source http//www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/rtecs/chapter3.html huw .

From : huw

i have always assumed that mileage would not vary greatly from one country to another because it is primarily governed by the amount of *time* people feel comfortable devoting to what is essentially a waste of time. i should say that i always like to quote machinery use even cars by hours of use rather than mileage. i would guess that average use doesnt vary much outside of between 350 to 400 hours per year wherever you are. now lets see 400 hours times say an average of 30mph is........ yes 12000 miles which sounds about right. hell i should be a transport planner or something my talents are wasted here lol. my land rover has done 150000 miles at an average which i worked out with care some time ago of 15mph is 10000 hours over 21 years or 475 hours per year which looks to be about right at about an hour and a third a day every day. to complete the same 10000 hours of use my land cruiser will average 31mph so will have to total 310000 miles. at present i complete less than 650 hours per year which is long enough to complete 20000 miles approximately so will need another 10 years of use to match the lrs total use. 10000 hours is 50 weeks of a full 40 hours solid for five years. yeeeek! huw .

From : theguy

on fri 10 feb 2006 022904 +0000 pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote theguy wrote on thu 09 feb 2006 213551 +0000 pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote steve wrote a friend of mine travelled by amtrak last year and told me that they were 20 hours late arriving on the way to their destination but only 18 hours late on the return trip -/ how on earth can you run a railway like that graham any attention to the absolutely insane fucking posts going on in this thread anymore i mean have we not had enough reminders of how totally fucking boring our friends in the uk are just think yourselves lucky that the us still has any friends. yeah graham poohy well just think that. yeah we sure will. just asking you know youre welcome. graham .

From : floyd rogers

steve no@spam.thanks wrote dori a schmetterling wrote how is that relevant to nub of the argument so far the best guesses we have for annual mileages in na and uk ae@ uk - 12 000 miles us/ca - 12 000 possibly 15 000 miles. i seriously doubt those us numbers. maybe if that is an average for all citizens including the vast number in new york chicago boston and san francisco that dont even own cars... but i dont know. it just feels wrong based on the fact that my annual mileage is between 20k and 25k and i have what is considered a rather short commute. listen if you dont believe the numbers find your own and cite them or stfu. floydr .

From : pooh bear

floyd rogers wrote steve no@spam.thanks wrote dori a schmetterling wrote how is that relevant to nub of the argument so far the best guesses we have for annual mileages in na and uk ae@ uk - 12 000 miles us/ca - 12 000 possibly 15 000 miles. i seriously doubt those us numbers. maybe if that is an average for all citizens including the vast number in new york chicago boston and san francisco that dont even own cars... but i dont know. it just feels wrong based on the fact that my annual mileage is between 20k and 25k and i have what is considered a rather short commute. listen if you dont believe the numbers find your own and cite them or stfu. i discovered that the us epa uses a figure of 12500 mi per annum for cars. uk average mileage is certainly 12000 mi commonly accepted figure it seems that those who seek to find huge differences are simply mistaken. i would expect those in the us living out in the wilds to have higher figures but statistically they are presumably a small insignificant minority. graham .

From : theguy

on thu 09 feb 2006 213551 +0000 pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote steve wrote a friend of mine travelled by amtrak last year and told me that they were 20 hours late arriving on the way to their destination but only 18 hours late on the return trip -/ how on earth can you run a railway like that graham any attention to the absolutely insane fucking posts going on in this thread anymore i mean have we not had enough reminders of how totally fucking boring our friends in the uk are just asking you know .

From : pooh bear

theguy wrote on thu 09 feb 2006 213551 +0000 pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote steve wrote a friend of mine travelled by amtrak last year and told me that they were 20 hours late arriving on the way to their destination but only 18 hours late on the return trip -/ how on earth can you run a railway like that graham any attention to the absolutely insane fucking posts going on in this thread anymore i mean have we not had enough reminders of how totally fucking boring our friends in the uk are just think yourselves lucky that the us still has any friends. just asking you know youre welcome. graham .

From : bill putney

pooh bear wrote just think yourselves lucky that the us still has any friends. hey - to borrow a line from the movie short circuit with friends like you who needs enemas bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : clare at snyder on ca

on fri 10 feb 2006 002616 -0000 huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote steve no@spam.thanks wrote dori a schmetterling wrote how is that relevant to nub of the argument so far the best guesses we have for annual mileages in na and uk ae@ uk - 12 000 miles us/ca - 12 000 possibly 15 000 miles. i seriously doubt those us numbers. maybe if that is an average for all citizens including the vast number in new york chicago boston and san francisco that dont even own cars... but i dont know. it just feels wrong based on the fact that my annual mileage is between 20k and 25k and i have what is considered a rather short commute. listen if you dont believe the numbers find your own and cite them or stfu. here are the figures for the usa which actually shows only 11400 miles per car overall with midwestern states actually posting lower mileage at 10700 miles which goes very much against what has been implied by some posters here particularly steve and clare from canada. of course canada might be at variance but i doubt it. i have always assumed that mileage would not vary greatly from one country to another because it is primarily governed by the amount of *time* people feel comfortable devoting to what is essentially a waste of time. here is a reference to a comprehensive and authoritative source http//www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/rtecs/chapter3.html huw only one problen huw - your comprehensive and authorative source is 12 years out of date. in that 12 years many farmers have had to resort to working off farm to make ends meet. these farmers need to drive significant distances to and from work - adding to the average mileage. also the price of housing has skyrocketed in the major urban centers - and more people are buying homes in the outlying areas because that is all they can afford and/or because they do not want the inner city urban lifestyle. so they spend 5 hours a day commuting at average speeds just less than 80km per hour or 50 m per hour - or 125 miles each way. it is a horrendous waste of time but the high paid jobs are in the city - and the homes and lifestyle these higher earners want are not. one thing that does tend to keep the average down is the fact many households have more than one car - and even more than one car per driver - so the good car or the toy or the rv may get significantly lower mileage. this brings down the average miles per vehicle but not the average miles per driver. one neighbours corolla gets about 50 times the miles his golf gets because the golf sits in the garage most of the time while the corolla does the 60 mile each way commute 5 days a week. any winter out-of town trips are on the corolla - the shiny polished golf only goes out when the sun is shining and the roads are dry. .

From : huw

on fri 10 feb 2006 002616 -0000 huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote here are the figures for the usa which actually shows only 11400 miles per car overall with midwestern states actually posting lower mileage at 10700 miles which goes very much against what has been implied by some posters here particularly steve and clare from canada. of course canada might be at variance but i doubt it. i have always assumed that mileage would not vary greatly from one country to another because it is primarily governed by the amount of *time* people feel comfortable devoting to what is essentially a waste of time. here is a reference to a comprehensive and authoritative source http//www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/rtecs/chapter3.html huw only one problen huw - your comprehensive and authorative source is 12 years out of date. in that 12 years many farmers have had to resort to working off farm to make ends meet. ..these farmers need to drive significant distances to and from work - adding to the average mileage. also the price of housing has skyrocketed in the major urban centers - and more people are buying homes in the outlying areas because that is all they can afford and/or because they do not want the inner city urban lifestyle. so they spend 5 hours a day commuting at average speeds just less than 80km per hour or 50 m per hour - or 125 miles each way. it is a horrendous waste of time but the high paid jobs are in the city - and the homes and lifestyle these higher earners want are not. one thing that does tend to keep the average down is the fact many households have more than one car - and even more than one car per driver - so the good car or the toy or the rv may get significantly lower mileage. this brings down the average miles per vehicle but not the average miles per driver. one neighbours corolla gets about 50 times the miles his golf gets because the golf sits in the garage most of the time while the corolla does the 60 mile each way commute 5 days a week. any winter out-of town trips are on the corolla - the shiny polished golf only goes out when the sun is shining and the roads are dry you think only the us have more than 1 vehicle per houshold you know i can easily get the figures for you if you insist. but first........... latest us figures for 2001 can be found here. it is easy to work out that the average has risen to around 11850 miles per vehicle cars average 11400suvs 13200 putrucks 12100 rvs 5900. http//www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/rtecs/nhtssurvey/2001/tablefiles/t04642005.pdf if you must bullshit youd better make sure the figures back you up. huw .. .

From : huw

you think only the us have more than 1 vehicle per houshold you know i can easily get the figures for you if you insist. here we are. in the uk 25% of all housholds have two cars and a further 5% have three or more. that is over 30% of all housholds with two cars or more while 26% have no cars at all. i suspect that the greater number of 0 car housholds are in cities where there is no room to park. huw .

From : huw

ive read what you have written and it is mostly bollocks. thus admitting that you havent bothered with actually researching your statements. i suggest you start by reading railway age an excellent publication for the rail industry. then trains and railfan and railroad both excellent publications as well. then perhaps you could look at the railroads websites for more real info. moral of the story here huw... bring facts. that you havent got any isnt my fault. fuel use comparison for train vs trucks buses and motor cars. http//www.transwatch.co.uk/transport-fact-sheet-5.htm the index for all fact sheets can be found here. http//www.transwatch.co.uk/fact-sheets.htm a nice accurate summary can be found here http//www.spiked-online.com/articles/0000000caf2c.htm huw .

From : max dodge

hell if you must bullshit might as well get 2006 figures if youre going to call it the latest figures. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author on fri 10 feb 2006 002616 -0000 huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote here are the figures for the usa which actually shows only 11400 miles per car overall with midwestern states actually posting lower mileage at 10700 miles which goes very much against what has been implied by some posters here particularly steve and clare from canada. of course canada might be at variance but i doubt it. i have always assumed that mileage would not vary greatly from one country to another because it is primarily governed by the amount of *time* people feel comfortable devoting to what is essentially a waste of time. here is a reference to a comprehensive and authoritative source http//www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/rtecs/chapter3.html huw only one problen huw - your comprehensive and authorative source is 12 years out of date. in that 12 years many farmers have had to resort to working off farm to make ends meet. .these farmers need to drive significant distances to and from work - adding to the average mileage. also the price of housing has skyrocketed in the major urban centers - and more people are buying homes in the outlying areas because that is all they can afford and/or because they do not want the inner city urban lifestyle. so they spend 5 hours a day commuting at average speeds just less than 80km per hour or 50 m per hour - or 125 miles each way. it is a horrendous waste of time but the high paid jobs are in the city - and the homes and lifestyle these higher earners want are not. one thing that does tend to keep the average down is the fact many households have more than one car - and even more than one car per driver - so the good car or the toy or the rv may get significantly lower mileage. this brings down the average miles per vehicle but not the average miles per driver. one neighbours corolla gets about 50 times the miles his golf gets because the golf sits in the garage most of the time while the corolla does the 60 mile each way commute 5 days a week. any winter out-of town trips are on the corolla - the shiny polished golf only goes out when the sun is shining and the roads are dry you think only the us have more than 1 vehicle per houshold you know i can easily get the figures for you if you insist. but first........... latest us figures for 2001 can be found here. it is easy to work out that the average has risen to around 11850 miles per vehicle cars average 11400suvs 13200 putrucks 12100 rvs 5900. http//www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/rtecs/nhtssurvey/2001/tablefiles/t04642005.pdf if you must bullshit youd better make sure the figures back you up. huw . .

From : max dodge

well huw this says it all for comparison with road we assumed a a motorway coach would return 10 miles per gallon and contain an average of 20 people b rail freight in lorries would provide 30 tonne loads full out empty back yielding an average of 15 tonnes. lorries may return 8 miles per gallon on uncongested rural roads or 7 mpg on average. first they make an assumption. big fat no no if yuo want accurate data. then they assume that the motorcoach would have passengers both ways. cant do that if you wont do it for the railway. both of them have periods of time when they will be less than full. but once again youve bypassed the facts and gone with assumptions. just because a motorcoach is used more frequently doesnt make it more efficient at moving a load. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author ive read what you have written and it is mostly bollocks. thus admitting that you havent bothered with actually researching your statements. i suggest you start by reading railway age an excellent publication for the rail industry. then trains and railfan and railroad both excellent publications as well. then perhaps you could look at the railroads websites for more real info. moral of the story here huw... bring facts. that you havent got any isnt my fault. fuel use comparison for train vs trucks buses and motor cars. http//www.transwatch.co.uk/transport-fact-sheet-5.htm the index for all fact sheets can be found here. http//www.transwatch.co.uk/fact-sheets.htm a nice accurate summary can be found here http//www.spiked-online.com/articles/0000000caf2c.htm huw .

From : dori a schmetterling

btw all calculations of this type are based on assumptions. these is what the basic parameters of any calculation are known as. one would hope that the assumptions are based on reasonable averages. das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- ... first they make an assumption. big fat no no if yuo want accurate data. then they assume that the motorcoach would have passengers both ways. cant do that if you wont do it for the railway. both of them have periods of time when they will be less than full. .. .

From : huw

huw wrote all the figures are available broken down per region and every which way you like. just follow the links i provided. either get yourself a dog or leave the ring before you get bitten deep on your ass ;- well youre certainly right that theres a lot of ass-biting going on but it aint the dogs that are doing the biting. well i am waiting for evidence that shows that official us figures are wrong and that you and clare know best. if youd go back and read i never claimed that i know best and i sure as hell dont speak for clare. i just said it doesnt feel like the right number. im perfectly well aware that intuition isnt a mathematical basis for anything so stop trying to pick a fight where there isnt one. whether the real national average per driver is 12 miles a year or 120000 miles a year doesnt change my life one iota either way. it is very gracious of you to admit your feeling was wrong. huw .

From : dori a schmetterling

not in this group... they all seem to live in the middle of nowhere have multi-car garages and drive 100 miles to get a paper...and are proud of it... ;- das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- ... i would expect those in the us living out in the wilds to have higher figures but statistically they are presumably a small insignificant minority. graham .

From : dori a schmetterling

i hope you think interesting thoughts to entertain yourself huwie... as i have quite a nice car and drive very little 5k mi p.a. tops i sometimes look forward to a longer trip e.g. to manchester or to the continent. however after about two hours the pleasure fades... das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- ... 10000 hours is 50 weeks of a full 40 hours solid for five years. yeeeek! huw .

From : dori a schmetterling

you dig em out if you disagree with the best facts available so far. as i said elsewhere personal anecdotes may be interesting but they are useless for arriving at general conclusions. das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- hell if you must bullshit might as well get 2006 figures if youre going to call it the latest figures. ... .

From : dtj

on mon 13 feb 2006 144933 -0500 clare at snyder.on.ca wrote dori a schmetterling wrote we may also be msixing up long and short gallons. btw my honda 175 which i had in the late 70s returned about 70 mpg imperial what do you call an imperial gallon btw 16 or 20 fl oz graham 160 last time i checked. compared to 128 for a yankee gallon its not that simple imperial fl oz and us fl oz. are not the same. the us measure is slightly larger so the ratio between a us and an imperial gallon or pint ends up closer to 5/6 than 4/5. no a fifth of scotch is one us quart. there are exactly 5 us quarts to the imperial gallon. i lived with the imperial system for most of my life right next door to the u s of a. well too bad you didnt use that time to learn anything about your neighbor. there are 3785.6 ml in a us gallon not 3000. what you refer to as a fifth is a 750ml bottle as they no longer make fifths which used to be oh my gosh a fifth of a gallon. a fifth of 3785.6 is 757.12 ml so a 750ml bottle is pretty close to what a fifth used to be. ************************* dave .

From : clare at snyder on ca

on mon 13 feb 2006 180714 -0600 dtj none@nowhere.com wrote on mon 13 feb 2006 144933 -0500 clare at snyder.on.ca wrote dori a schmetterling wrote we may also be msixing up long and short gallons. btw my honda 175 which i had in the late 70s returned about 70 mpg imperial what do you call an imperial gallon btw 16 or 20 fl oz graham 160 last time i checked. compared to 128 for a yankee gallon its not that simple imperial fl oz and us fl oz. are not the same. the us measure is slightly larger so the ratio between a us and an imperial gallon or pint ends up closer to 5/6 than 4/5. no a fifth of scotch is one us quart. there are exactly 5 us quarts to the imperial gallon. i lived with the imperial system for most of my life right next door to the u s of a. well too bad you didnt use that time to learn anything about your neighbor. there are 3785.6 ml in a us gallon not 3000. what you refer to as a fifth is a 750ml bottle as they no longer make fifths which used to be oh my gosh a fifth of a gallon. a fifth of 3785.6 is 757.12 ml so a 750ml bottle is pretty close to what a fifth used to be. nobody mentioned liters or so stop trying to start an arguement.. an american gallon is 4/5 of a uk or canadian gallon - also known as an imperial or crown gallon. in other words it takes 5 yankee quarts to make an imperial gallon. thats all i said - and since they dont make a fifth any more it doesnt matter how close it is to 750ml. ************************* dave *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .

From : joe pfeiffer

clare at snyder.on.ca writes nobody mentioned liters or so stop trying to start an arguement.. an american gallon is 4/5 of a uk or canadian gallon - also known as an imperial or crown gallon. in other words it takes 5 yankee quarts to make an imperial gallon. thats all i said - and since they dont make a fifth any more it doesnt matter how close it is to 750ml. no as a matter of fact you said a fifth of liquor was a quart. there have now been two people who have pointed out you were wrong; in my case with a cite. the graceful thing to do would be to admit your error. the argumentative thing to do would be to pretend wikipedia my source isnt by and large accurate in which case i would immediately challenge you to find a more authoritative source that agreed with you. lets just skip that step and please either find a source that agrees with you or admit your error. -- joseph j. pfeiffer jr. ph.d. phone -- 505 646-1605 department of computer science fax -- 505 646-1002 new mexico state university http//www.cs.nmsu.edu/pfeiffer skype jjpfeifferjr .

From : tbone

it makes perfect sense max its supply and demand. you want it they have it and your gonna pay for it. now they can justify their higher price by claiming that the sudden increase in demand has pushed their ability to provide it along with gasoline which is of course to a point completely accurate but in a free enterprise system... -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving for my use even at the higher price my mpg vs. a gasoline powered truck of the same model makes diesel a more economical choice. diesel is more costly now because of more detailed refining such as the removal of sulfer. however ill agree that it makes little sense that fuel that used to cost about half what a gallon of gasoline did now costs up to 25% more than a gallon of gasoline. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author i have the cummins isb which is one generation back. having noted the better efficiency of diesel fuel over gasoline i made the decision to buy a higher cost vehicle in order to increase my efficency long term i too drive a diesel as one of my rides although it is a mercedes 300sd 1983. i have over 338000 miles on it and it still runs and looks good. however a disappointing thing has happened as of late--diesel fuel tends to be amongst the priciest fuels sometimes even aceing out premium at the pump. for a fuel that is just a cut or so above lubricating oil i find this hard to believe. .

From : huw

in the netherlands especially cyclists are largely excluded from a lot of the main road network. could one build such a network of cycle paths now in the us or uk possibly. disused railway lines have a potential if not opened up for buses ;- huw .

From : clare at snyder on ca

on 13 feb 2006 225729 -0700 joe pfeiffer pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu wrote clare at snyder.on.ca writes nobody mentioned liters or so stop trying to start an arguement.. an american gallon is 4/5 of a uk or canadian gallon - also known as an imperial or crown gallon. in other words it takes 5 yankee quarts to make an imperial gallon. thats all i said - and since they dont make a fifth any more it doesnt matter how close it is to 750ml. no as a matter of fact you said a fifth of liquor was a quart. there have now been two people who have pointed out you were wrong; in my case with a cite. the graceful thing to do would be to admit your error. the argumentative thing to do would be to pretend wikipedia my source isnt by and large accurate in which case i would immediately challenge you to find a more authoritative source that agreed with you. lets just skip that step and please either find a source that agrees with you or admit your error. i dont buy liquor and particularly not in the states. i may be wrong about the fifth but not about the relationship between american and imperial measure. *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .

From : clare at snyder on ca

on 13 feb 2006 225729 -0700 joe pfeiffer pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu wrote clare at snyder.on.ca writes nobody mentioned liters or so stop trying to start an arguement.. an american gallon is 4/5 of a uk or canadian gallon - also known as an imperial or crown gallon. in other words it takes 5 yankee quarts to make an imperial gallon. thats all i said - and since they dont make a fifth any more it doesnt matter how close it is to 750ml. no as a matter of fact you said a fifth of liquor was a quart. there have now been two people who have pointed out you were wrong; in my case with a cite. the graceful thing to do would be to admit your error. the argumentative thing to do would be to pretend wikipedia my source isnt by and large accurate in which case i would immediately challenge you to find a more authoritative source that agreed with you. lets just skip that step and please either find a source that agrees with you or admit your error. up here in canada you didnt buy a fifth you bought a twenty-sixer. might have been short by .6 oz and actually been a fifth *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .

From : dori a schmetterling

mentioning ml or litres may help you get to the right ratio as you dont seem to have noticed that the exact relationship has already been pointed out 1 us gallon = 0.833 rounded imperial gallon 1 imperial gallon = 1.201 rounded us gallon this not exactly 4/5. or 3.7854 l v 4.54609 = 0.833 rounded. das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- ... nobody mentioned liters or so stop trying to start an arguement.. an american gallon is 4/5 of a uk or canadian gallon - also known as an imperial or crown gallon. in other words it takes 5 yankee quarts to make an imperial gallon. thats all i said - and since they dont make a fifth any more it doesnt matter how close it is to 750ml. ************************* dave .

From : huw

mentioning ml or litres may help you get to the right ratio as you dont seem to have noticed that the exact relationship has already been pointed out 1 us gallon = 0.833 rounded imperial gallon 1 imperial gallon = 1.201 rounded us gallon this not exactly 4/5. or 3.7854 l v 4.54609 = 0.833 rounded. das i have noted a lack of use of the decimal si system here in this forum at least while fractions which are now seldom used in europe are. up until recently the si system was taught as a secondary system in the usa or so i have been led to believe even though it is the universal language of scientists everywhere. am i right huw .

From : richard sexton

floyd rogers fbloogyudsr@hotmail.com wrote daniel j. stern dastern@engin.umich.edu wrote clare wrote in the us the metric system is basically relegated to science - it is seen as a frenchystem and the yanks hate the french. ... and just you *try* getting anything metric at rona or home despot. nope everythings inch from the fluorescent tubes darn daniel i had been considering posting a electrical engineering standards have never been non-metric gloat but i hadnt considered the actual fittings wires etc. good point i missed that. youd probably have a better chance finding whitworth thread bolt here than metric in the small villiage in canada that i live in. and my dad has all the wrenches -- need mercedes parts - http//parts.mbz.org richard sexton | mercedes stuff http//mbz.org 1970 280se 72 280se | home page http//rs79.vrx.net 633csi 250se/c 300sd | http//aquaria.net http//killi.net .

From : dtj

on 13 feb 2006 225729 -0700 joe pfeiffer pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu wrote clare at snyder.on.ca writes nobody mentioned liters or so stop trying to start an arguement.. an american gallon is 4/5 of a uk or canadian gallon - also known as an imperial or crown gallon. in other words it takes 5 yankee quarts to make an imperial gallon. thats all i said - and since they dont make a fifth any more it doesnt matter how close it is to 750ml. no as a matter of fact you said a fifth of liquor was a quart. there have now been two people who have pointed out you were wrong; in my case with a cite. the graceful thing to do would be to admit your error. the argumentative thing to do would be to pretend wikipedia my source isnt by and large accurate in which case i would immediately challenge you to find a more authoritative source that agreed with you. lets just skip that step and please either find a source that agrees with you or admit your error. she cant be wrong she once lived near the us so she knows more than you or i ever could. ************************* dave .

From : clare at snyder on ca

on tue 14 feb 2006 221657 -0000 huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote mentioning ml or litres may help you get to the right ratio as you dont seem to have noticed that the exact relationship has already been pointed out 1 us gallon = 0.833 rounded imperial gallon 1 imperial gallon = 1.201 rounded us gallon this not exactly 4/5. or 3.7854 l v 4.54609 = 0.833 rounded. das i have noted a lack of use of the decimal si system here in this forum at least while fractions which are now seldom used in europe are. up until recently the si system was taught as a secondary system in the usa or so i have been led to believe even though it is the universal language of scientists everywhere. am i right huw in the us the metric system is basically relegated to science - it is seen as a frenchystem and the yanks hate the french. *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .

From : bill putney

huw wrote mentioning ml or litres may help you get to the right ratio as you dont seem to have noticed that the exact relationship has already been pointed out 1 us gallon = 0.833 rounded imperial gallon 1 imperial gallon = 1.201 rounded us gallon this not exactly 4/5. or 3.7854 l v 4.54609 = 0.833 rounded. das i have noted a lack of use of the decimal si system here in this forum at least while fractions which are now seldom used in europe are. up until recently the si system was taught as a secondary system in the usa or so i have been led to believe even though it is the universal language of scientists everywhere. am i right huw varies somewhat by industry and its a *very* mixed bag even within a given industry. for example automotive manufacturing top tiers - all drawing dimensions are in si by edict. yet on the street its still miles per hour gallons etc. and aftermarket sway bars are listed in inch dimensions i.e. in aftermarket listings a 25 mm sway bar will be referred to as a 1 sway bar - which causes a lot of confusion since 1 = 25.4 mm and there might be an option for a 25 mm and a 26 mm sway bar for the same vehicle. in military hardware that i deal with its 98% sae or as is commonly said inch dimensions though i get the distinct impression that geographical distances are typically given in kms. 15 and 20 years ago when i worked in aerospace i would put together presentations to be made to nasa for space station and shuttle add-on proposals. we would get direction from our management almost every week to change our viewgraphs to either si or inch from the other system that we had used the week before then a week later the direction would come down to change it back. it would flip-flop back and forth constantly like that. i proposed using dual units i.e. 1/25.4 mm or 25.4 mm/1 in all our presentations so we didnt have to keep changing them. nasa wouldnt allow that - had to be whatever they said that week. i got so that i automatically kept two versions of all viewgraphs i generated in my computer - one in each system. that way i was always ready. some years later my wife and were in the car and heard on the radio that the mars lander had crashed into the planet because they had mixed up the two systems in some calculations. i about wrecked the car laughing and my wife got it too because she had heard me talk about my dual-viewgraph system. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : christopher thompson

on tue 14 feb 2006 221657 -0000 huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote mentioning ml or litres may help you get to the right ratio as you dont seem to have noticed that the exact relationship has already been pointed out 1 us gallon = 0.833 rounded imperial gallon 1 imperial gallon = 1.201 rounded us gallon this not exactly 4/5. or 3.7854 l v 4.54609 = 0.833 rounded. das i have noted a lack of use of the decimal si system here in this forum at least while fractions which are now seldom used in europe are. up until recently the si system was taught as a secondary system in the usa or so i have been led to believe even though it is the universal language of scientists everywhere. am i right huw in the us the metric system is basically relegated to science - it is seen as a frenchystem and the yanks hate the french. funny last i checked i was in the u.s.a. and we use the metric si sytem excusively in my work. our rulers dont even have english markings. and no i dont work in a lab. -- -chris 05 ctd 99 durango *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .

From : bill putney

christopher thompson wrote funny last i checked i was in the u.s.a. and we use the metric si sytem excusively in my work. our rulers dont even have english markings. and no i dont work in a lab. depends *totally* on what industry you are in see examples in my earlier post. btw - i work in a lab and english units are used almost exclusively due to primary customer exclusive use of english units. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : joe pfeiffer

on metric the thing is there just isnt a compelling reason to change in the us. when i read about the state of affairs in europe pre-metric where a country the size of france would have dozens of slightly-differing units my mind boggles. the important thing about the metric system in europe wasnt that it was decimal it was that it was a continent-wide standard. in the us the difference between a litre divided into ccs vs. a quart divided into ounces when 99 out of a 100 people know neither that there are 32 ounces to a quart nor that there are 1000 ccs in a litre just doesnt matter all that much. and incidentally last time i was in england i found many more mile markers than kilometre markers too. -- joseph j. pfeiffer jr. ph.d. phone -- 505 646-1605 department of computer science fax -- 505 646-1002 new mexico state university http//www.cs.nmsu.edu/pfeiffer skype jjpfeifferjr .

From : dori a schmetterling

if i may say so thats just a silly non-sequitur. the fact remains that you have been given the exact ratio of the uk and us gallons which you somehow seek to deny. das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- ... in the us the metric system is basically relegated to science - it is seen as a frenchystem and the yanks hate the french. .

From : huw

on metric the thing is there just isnt a compelling reason to change in the us. when i read about the state of affairs in europe pre-metric where a country the size of france would have dozens of slightly-differing units my mind boggles. the important thing about the metric system in europe wasnt that it was decimal it was that it was a continent-wide standard. in the us the difference between a litre divided into ccs vs. a quart divided into ounces when 99 out of a 100 people know neither that there are 32 ounces to a quart nor that there are 1000 ccs in a litre just doesnt matter all that much. and incidentally last time i was in england i found many more mile markers than kilometre markers too. i am surprised you found a single kilometre marker. i havent seen one and i live here. although the uk is fully metricated we still keep to miles and we still call 50kg a hundredweight. fuel is priced and sold by the litre yet fuel consumption is almost universally quoted as miles per gallon. i went through school up until eight years old being taught imperial and then changed to metric yet even todays youngsters use miles and miles per gallon. time we changed i think. huw .

From : dtj

on tue 14 feb 2006 195245 -0500 clare at snyder.on.ca wrote in the us the metric system is basically relegated to science - it is seen as a frenchystem and the yanks hate the french. you amaze me with how much you think you know. we have not always hated the french just lately when they decided it was more important to steal money from the iraqi people and allow sh to murder women and children and to attempt to prevent the us from putting a stop to it. remember how to tell if someone is french are they waving a white flag ************************* dave .

From : dori a schmetterling

exactly! its because the official legal measure of distance is still the mile. dont ask! joe p must have been in eire where they ran both mile and km signs for years surprise surprise....grin. only recently is everthing in km. in some continental countries there is still an idiomatic pound 500 g and so people might speak about a half pound meaning 250 g. there are or were also superseded monetary units such as the french sou 5 centimes this may have gone with the arrival of the euro.. none of these have any legal status. there is some merit to joes point about having a single unit in an economic region reducing pressure on us to change but i think it is not a strong case. europe changed to fairly uniform metric measure in the 19th century when napoleon occupied large chunks of it. this long preceded the antecedents of the eu treaty of rome 1957. and how do we define a sufficient region for standardisation how about the globe there imperial measure is hardly found. just legal in mainly only the usa and understood in a few other places. the mile in the uk being one of those exceptions. there have been many arguments about the merits of the duodecimal system v decimal and metric and while the duodecimal sytem does have a number of advantages decimal/metric wins out for the vast majority of people. das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- on metric ... and incidentally last time i was in england i found many more mile markers than kilometre markers too. i am surprised you found a single kilometre marker. i havent seen one and i live here. although the uk is fully metricated we still keep to miles ... huw .

From : dtj

on wed 15 feb 2006 190600 -0500 clare at snyder.on.ca wrote im not discussing this any further - you want to nit-pick - nit-pick. sure sounds like you are. ************************* dave .

From : whoever

on tue 14 feb 2006 clare@snyder.on.ca wrote on 13 feb 2006 225729 -0700 joe pfeiffer pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu wrote clare at snyder.on.ca writes nobody mentioned liters or so stop trying to start an arguement.. an american gallon is 4/5 of a uk or canadian gallon - also known as an imperial or crown gallon. in other words it takes 5 yankee quarts to make an imperial gallon. thats all i said - and since they dont make a fifth any more it doesnt matter how close it is to 750ml. no as a matter of fact you said a fifth of liquor was a quart. there have now been two people who have pointed out you were wrong; in my case with a cite. the graceful thing to do would be to admit your error. the argumentative thing to do would be to pretend wikipedia my source isnt by and large accurate in which case i would immediately challenge you to find a more authoritative source that agreed with you. lets just skip that step and please either find a source that agrees with you or admit your error. i dont buy liquor and particularly not in the states. i may be wrong about the fifth but not about the relationship between american and imperial measure. amazing how people can be so certain that they are right in the face of evidence that they are in fact wrong! try this web page http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/comparisonoftheimperialandu.s.customarysystems here is a quote from it 1 u.s. fluid ounce = 29.5735295625 mililitres = 1.041 imperial fluid ounces see that a us fl oz. is not the same as an imperial fl. oz. in fact as i mentioned earlier a us fl oz is slightly larger than an imperial fl. oz. as for living in canada so what some of us have actually lived in different countries! in my kitchen i have both imperial pint measure jugs and us pint measure jugs -- i think that trumps your ive lived next door to the us. .

From : whoever

on tue 14 feb 2006 christopher thompson wrote funny last i checked i was in the u.s.a. and we use the metric si sytem excusively in my work. our rulers dont even have english markings. and no i dont work in a lab. in my industry us-based companies switched about 20 years ago from using inches to using si units. regarding rulers though ever tried to buy a metric ruler or any metric measure in a hardware store they seem to be either unavailable or very rare. .

From : st john smythe

whoever wrote regarding rulers though ever tried to buy a metric ruler or any metric measure in a hardware store they seem to be either unavailable or very rare. i think the purely metric ones are fairly rare but ive got a lufkin metric/inch combination tape measure that came from lowes. i use it a *lot* more than i expected. -- st. john the right honorable gentleman is indebted to his memory for his jests and to his imagination for his facts. -sheridan .

From : whoever

on wed 15 feb 2006 clare@snyder.on.ca wrote on wed 15 feb 2006 130645 -0800 whoever nobody@devnull.none wrote try this web page http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/comparisonoftheimperialandu.s.customarysystems here is a quote from it 1 u.s. fluid ounce = 29.5735295625 mililitres = 1.041 imperial fluid ounces see that a us fl oz. is not the same as an imperial fl. oz. in fact as i mentioned earlier a us fl oz is slightly larger than an imperial fl. oz. ok so there is a 4% difference. for all practical purposes they are the same. for all practical purposes there are 5 us quarts in an imperial gallon. my original statement was that the ratio was closer to 5/6 than 4/5. you wrote that i was wrong about this. well guess what you were wrong! check out what others posted you will find that the 5/6 ratio is fairly close. im not discussing this any further - you want to nit-pick - nit-pick. translation you just wont admit that you were wrong. if you did not want to discuss it why even post your last response .

From : clare at snyder on ca

on wed 15 feb 2006 130645 -0800 whoever nobody@devnull.none wrote on tue 14 feb 2006 clare@snyder.on.ca wrote on 13 feb 2006 225729 -0700 joe pfeiffer pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu wrote clare at snyder.on.ca writes nobody mentioned liters or so stop trying to start an arguement.. an american gallon is 4/5 of a uk or canadian gallon - also known as an imperial or crown gallon. in other words it takes 5 yankee quarts to make an imperial gallon. thats all i said - and since they dont make a fifth any more it doesnt matter how close it is to 750ml. no as a matter of fact you said a fifth of liquor was a quart. there have now been two people who have pointed out you were wrong; in my case with a cite. the graceful thing to do would be to admit your error. the argumentative thing to do would be to pretend wikipedia my source isnt by and large accurate in which case i would immediately challenge you to find a more authoritative source that agreed with you. lets just skip that step and please either find a source that agrees with you or admit your error. i dont buy liquor and particularly not in the states. i may be wrong about the fifth but not about the relationship between american and imperial measure. amazing how people can be so certain that they are right in the face of evidence that they are in fact wrong! try this web page http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/comparisonoftheimperialandu.s.customarysystems here is a quote from it 1 u.s. fluid ounce = 29.5735295625 mililitres = 1.041 imperial fluid ounces see that a us fl oz. is not the same as an imperial fl. oz. in fact as i mentioned earlier a us fl oz is slightly larger than an imperial fl. oz. as for living in canada so what some of us have actually lived in different countries! in my kitchen i have both imperial pint measure jugs and us pint measure jugs -- i think that trumps your ive lived next door to the us. ok so there is a 4% difference. for all practical purposes they are the same. for all practical purposes there are 5 us quarts in an imperial gallon. for all practical purposes a fifth of liquor is 26 imperal ounces or a twenty sixer closer than 750ml which is the metricequivalent and since the seventies or eighties has replaced thefifth in the us. im not discussing this any further - you want to nit-pick - nit-pick. *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .

From : martin joseph

on 2006-02-14 165245 -0800 clare at snyder.on.ca said in the us the metric system is basically relegated to science - it is seen as a frenchystem and the yanks hate the french. i am an american and i love the french. we would not have a country without them. also could all of you people stop this crossposting madness i know you do drift back on topic at times but still this is absurd. perhaps you could all all 5 of you start a new group alt.dumb.crossposters. marty ps yes i know i am guilty also. .

From : huw

martin joseph wrote on 2006-02-14 165245 -0800 clare at snyder.on.ca said in the us the metric system is basically relegated to science - it is seen as a frenchystem and the yanks hate the french. i am an american and i love the french. we would not have a country without them. also could all of you people stop this crossposting madness i know you do drift back on topic at times but still this is absurd. perhaps you could all all 5 of you start a new group alt.dumb.crossposters. marty ps yes i know i am guilty also. there are now 974 messages in this conversation from 49 authors. why stop now besides which i dont even know what the topic is. i know what it says in the subject line but that is irrelevant. does anyone actually know what the topic is i think it may be about trains and cars. huw .

From : bill putney

received about 12-20 inches this past weekend depends where you are in 15 mile circle. was over 50 degrees today. supposed to be 10 above this saturday. a very strange winter to say the least. roy . 222 312766 dt0qb8$oai$2@.isdn.net clare at snyder.on.ca wrote ...for all practical purposes a fifth of liquor is 26 imperal ounces or a twenty sixer closer than 750ml which is the metricequivalent and since the seventies or eighties has replaced thefifth in the us. ill drink to that. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : daniel j stern

clare wrote in the us the metric system is basically relegated to science - it is seen as a frenchystem and the yanks hate the french. things are *not* very different up here in canada and it would be disingenuous to suggest they are. sure the highways are signed in km/h and the motor fuel is sold in litres. thats the primary main difference! you can still walk into any supermarkets deli counter and ask for a quarter-pound of smoked meat a half-pound of marble cheddar sliced about 1/8-inch thick and two pounds of fresh mozzarella without any problem. the label printed on what you get might call out 115g of smoked meat 225g of marble cheddar sliced 3mm thick and 900g of fresh mozzarella but you never have to ask in metric. likewise people still talk about ikea being about 3 miles away and just you *try* getting anything metric at rona or home despot. nope everythings inch from the fluorescent tubes to the lumber plumbing supplies electrical terminals and fasteners. you can get uss and sae thread machine screws in a whole huge range of sizes but only one or two metric sizes. i had to drive clear across town to brafasco to get some 4mm screws just this week after calling half a dozen large and small toronto-area hardware and home warehouse stores without success. .

From : floyd rogers

daniel j. stern dastern@engin.umich.edu wrote clare wrote in the us the metric system is basically relegated to science - it is seen as a frenchystem and the yanks hate the french. ... and just you *try* getting anything metric at rona or home despot. nope everythings inch from the fluorescent tubes darn daniel i had been considering posting a electrical engineering standards have never been non-metric gloat but i hadnt considered the actual fittings wires etc. floydr ;- .

From : daniel j stern

clare wrote in the us the metric system is basically relegated to science - it is seen as a frenchystem and the yanks hate the french. things are *not* very different up here in canada and it would be disingenuous to suggest they are. sure the highways are signed in km/h and the motor fuel is sold in litres. thats the primary main difference! you can still walk into any supermarkets deli counter and ask for a quarter-pound of smoked meat a half-pound of marble cheddar sliced about 1/8-inch thick and two pounds of fresh mozzarella without any problem. the label printed on what you get might call out 115g of smoked meat 225g of marble cheddar sliced 3mm thick and 900g of fresh mozzarella but you never have to ask in metric. likewise people still talk about ikea being about 3 miles away and just you *try* getting anything metric at rona or home despot. nope everythings inch from the fluorescent tubes to the lumber plumbing supplies electrical terminals and fasteners. you can get uss and sae thread machine screws in a whole huge range of sizes but only one or two metric sizes. i had to drive clear across town to brafasco to get some 4mm screws just this week after calling half a dozen large and small toronto-area hardware and home warehouse stores without success. .

From : richard sexton

daniel j. stern dastern@engin.umich.edu wrote clare wrote in the us the metric system is basically relegated to science - it is seen as a frenchystem and the yanks hate the french. things are *not* very different up here in canada and it would be disingenuous to suggest they are. sure the highways are signed in km/h and the motor fuel is sold in litres. thats the primary main difference! you can still walk into any supermarkets deli counter and ask for a quarter-pound of smoked meat a half-pound of marble cheddar sliced about 1/8-inch thick and two pounds of fresh mozzarella without any problem. the label printed on what you get might call out 115g of smoked meat 225g of marble cheddar sliced 3mm thick and 900g of fresh mozzarella but you never have to ask in metric. likewise people still talk about ikea being about 3 miles away and just you *try* getting anything metric at rona or home despot. nope everythings inch from the fluorescent tubes to the lumber plumbing supplies electrical terminals and fasteners. you can get uss and sae thread machine screws in a whole huge range of sizes but only one or two metric sizes. i had to drive clear across town to brafasco to get some 4mm screws just this week after calling half a dozen large and small toronto-area hardware and home warehouse stores without success. yes daniel but... well keep in mind that toronto is a bit more cosmopolitan than say where i live. you ask the kids in the groery store for a pound of sliced ham and you get a bit of a blank stare till them remember that thats 454 grams. i think the know this becuase marijuana is sold by the gram. temperature is a better example of this. i remember the day sep 6/77 i *think* canada switched to metric... i was dirving to aforementioned uni. i know what 72f means or 80f. you tell me its gonna be 21 tomorrow and i *think* thats warm. i think. maybe. i dunno. the point is kids that have grown up withit and know nothing else have taken to metric 100%. some of us old farts. now otoh my parents know about all this celcius stuff so go figure. i like grams for grocerty stuff its more precise but celcius is more course than farenheit and not as usefull to me anyway. i dont know anybody that used kilometers for distance. thats aoways miles and miage is always miles per gallon here from what i see not l/100km or whatever. -- need mercedes parts - http//parts.mbz.org richard sexton | mercedes stuff http//mbz.org 1970 280se 72 280se | home page http//rs79.vrx.net 633csi 250se/c 300sd | http//aquaria.net http//killi.net .

From : guenter scholz

daniel j. stern dastern@engin.umich.edu wrote clare wrote in the us the metric system is basically relegated to science - it is seen as a frenchystem and the yanks hate the french. things are *not* very different up here in canada and it would be disingenuous to suggest they are. sure the highways are signed in km/h and the motor fuel is sold in litres. thats the primary main crap. i do not know anyone that uses f ... everyone and i mean everyone uses c. what the hell why do the us use an old antiquated german system of temperature... farenheit.... give me a break. 0 was as cold as he could get it and at the upper end he put 100 f when he in fact had a fever. si the greatest thing napoleon ever did. difference! you can still walk into any supermarkets deli counter and ask for a quarter-pound of smoked meat a half-pound of marble cheddar sliced about 1/8-inch thick and two pounds of fresh mozzarella without any problem. crap again. if you are an old foggy im sure the store is not going to turn you away when you order in pounds .... hell they still use pounds in germany.... most reasonably well educated - even those that are not - typically use g/kg when ordering .... about the only place i still see lbs used mostly if not exclusively is when giving your weight and well whod want to use newtons anyway. the label printed on what you get might call out 115g of smoked meat 225g of marble cheddar sliced 3mm thick and 900g of fresh mozzarella but you never have to ask in metric. likewise people still talk about ikea being about 3 miles away and just you not in my world.... i drive 100kph and the speed limits are 100 kph and i know something 100 km away will take 1 hr. ..... so simple. i do not know of anyone in miles/hr or even when talking cars who is not using liters/100km its just so much easier. i guess you are older..... *try* getting anything metric at rona or home despot. nope go figure..... thats because home depost is american. rona is a different story no problem with metric. however considering canadas economy is geared to the uss not much of a suprise to see imperial used everythings inch from the fluorescent tubes to the lumber plumbing supplies electrical terminals and fasteners. you can get uss and sae listen metric and imperial are equally present. personally ive got a fair set of tools and only my ratchet has 3/8 on it.... everything else is metric. i guess it is a fair statement that if you want to close your eyes to metric you can still do it.... but not much longer. kids have no idea of imperial anymore..... except as i said weight. cheers .

From : john q

daniel j. stern wrote clare wrote in the us the metric system is basically relegated to science - it is seen as a frenchystem and the yanks hate the french. things are *not* very different up here in canada and it would be disingenuous to suggest they are. sure the highways are signed in km/h and the motor fuel is sold in litres. thats the primary main difference! you can still walk into any supermarkets deli counter and ask for a quarter-pound of smoked meat a half-pound of marble cheddar sliced about 1/8-inch thick and two pounds of fresh mozzarella without any problem. the label printed on what you get might call out 115g of smoked meat 225g of marble cheddar sliced 3mm thick and 900g of fresh mozzarella but you never have to ask in metric. well hell you also order meat at your friendly charcuterie in france of all places in pounds livres. germany has its zentners 100 pounds not kg. a lot of most tires and even bicycles in europe are measured in inches. i have a bitch with tire sizings everywhere why do they need to combine inches and millimeters with tire sizes pick one system and stick with it. .

From : john q

guenter scholz wrote daniel j. stern dastern@engin.umich.edu wrote clare wrote in the us the metric system is basically relegated to science - it is seen as a frenchystem and the yanks hate the french. things are *not* very different up here in canada and it would be disingenuous to suggest they are. sure the highways are signed in km/h and the motor fuel is sold in litres. thats the primary main crap. i do not know anyone that uses f ... everyone and i mean everyone uses c. what the hell why do the us use an old antiquated german system of temperature... farenheit.... give me a break. 0 was as cold as he could get it and at the upper end he put 100 f when he in fact had a fever. si the greatest thing napoleon ever did. i dont mind fahrenheit at all. with whole numbers you get more precision with fahrenheit than you do with celsius. not sure how a numberi can be antiquated. difference! you can still walk into any supermarkets deli counter and ask for a quarter-pound of smoked meat a half-pound of marble cheddar sliced about 1/8-inch thick and two pounds of fresh mozzarella without any problem. crap again. if you are an old foggy im sure the store is not going to turn you away when you order in pounds .... hell they still use pounds in germany.... most reasonably well educated - even those that are not - typically use g/kg when ordering .... about the only place i still see lbs used mostly if not exclusively is when giving your weight and well whod want to use newtons anyway. heh in uk its common to give you weight in stones. the label printed on what you get might call out 115g of smoked meat 225g of marble cheddar sliced 3mm thick and 900g of fresh mozzarella but you never have to ask in metric. likewise people still talk about ikea being about 3 miles away and just you not in my world.... i drive 100kph and the speed limits are 100 kph and i know something 100 km away will take 1 hr. ..... so simple. i do not know of anyone in miles/hr or even when talking cars who is not using liters/100km its just so much easier. i guess you are older..... i never did figure out why litres per 100 km. when you are stopped you instantaneous economy is infinity. how do you average that similarily as your economy improves it is a limit to zero. 100 km per litre or just km per litre sure would make a lot more sense mathmatically. *try* getting anything metric at rona or home despot. nope go figure..... thats because home depost is american. rona is a different story no problem with metric. however considering canadas economy is geared to the uss not much of a suprise to see imperial used imperial us doesnt use imperial gallons generally. everythings inch from the fluorescent tubes to the lumber plumbing supplies electrical terminals and fasteners. you can get uss and sae listen metric and imperial are equally present. personally ive got a fair set of tools and only my ratchet has 3/8 on it.... everything else is metric. i guess it is a fair statement that if you want to close your eyes to metric you can still do it.... but not much longer. kids have no idea of imperial anymore..... except as i said weight. you could say the same thing about tools in usa. if youre going to do much you need both systems. here i wish everything was si but tool companies like the current situation i suppose. .

From : john q

richard sexton wrote daniel j. stern dastern@engin.umich.edu wrote clare wrote in the us the metric system is basically relegated to science - it is seen as a frenchystem and the yanks hate the french. things are *not* very different up here in canada and it would be disingenuous to suggest they are. sure the highways are signed in km/h and the motor fuel is sold in litres. thats the primary main difference! you can still walk into any supermarkets deli counter and ask for a quarter-pound of smoked meat a half-pound of marble cheddar sliced about 1/8-inch thick and two pounds of fresh mozzarella without any problem. the label printed on what you get might call out 115g of smoked meat 225g of marble cheddar sliced 3mm thick and 900g of fresh mozzarella but you never have to ask in metric. likewise people still talk about ikea being about 3 miles away and just you *try* getting anything metric at rona or home despot. nope everythings inch from the fluorescent tubes to the lumber plumbing supplies electrical terminals and fasteners. you can get uss and sae thread machine screws in a whole huge range of sizes but only one or two metric sizes. i had to drive clear across town to brafasco to get some 4mm screws just this week after calling half a dozen large and small toronto-area hardware and home warehouse stores without success. yes daniel but... well keep in mind that toronto is a bit more cosmopolitan than say where i live. you ask the kids in the groery store for a pound of sliced ham and you get a bit of a blank stare till them remember that thats 454 grams. i think the know this becuase marijuana is sold by the gram. in the us its ounces. at least thats how the laws are usually written. cocaine on the other hand tends to use si measurements. on thing ive noticed is in france they tend to weigh food ingredients more than in america north at least. for example us cooks might sift flour and then try to measure it by volume which is moderately precise at best. french cooks will simply weigh the flour and be done with it. much more precise and takes a lot less time. probably part of the reason why the food is so good. .

From : pooh bear

john q wrote daniel j. stern wrote clare wrote in the us the metric system is basically relegated to science - it is seen as a frenchystem and the yanks hate the french. things are *not* very different up here in canada and it would be disingenuous to suggest they are. sure the highways are signed in km/h and the motor fuel is sold in litres. thats the primary main difference! you can still walk into any supermarkets deli counter and ask for a quarter-pound of smoked meat a half-pound of marble cheddar sliced about 1/8-inch thick and two pounds of fresh mozzarella without any problem. the label printed on what you get might call out 115g of smoked meat 225g of marble cheddar sliced 3mm thick and 900g of fresh mozzarella but you never have to ask in metric. well hell you also order meat at your friendly charcuterie in france of all places in pounds livres. germany has its zentners 100 pounds not kg. a lot of most tires and even bicycles in europe are measured in inches. i have a bitch with tire sizings everywhere why do they need to combine inches and millimeters with tire sizes pick one system and stick with it. many measures are determined by established use. hence the continued use of inches for wheels and tyres for cars. also feet for altitude and knots for speed in aviation. it doesnt *have* to make sense. graham .

From : guenter scholz

guenter scholz wrote fahrenheit than you do with celsius. not sure how a numberi can be antiquated. antiquated is if its outlived its usefulness. can you give me any reason at all why water freezes at 32f i think i do know why but geeez 32 personally i thought 35.6 would have been better - heh in uk its common to give you weight in stones. i can see that! its a lot smaller number - my wife to a girl friend and i weigh 32 stone.... what do you weigh 1000 newton lol i never did figure out why litres per 100 km. when you are stopped you instantaneous economy is infinity. how do you average that lhopital .... thats probably why he studied limits - similarily as your economy improves it is a limit to zero. 100 km per litre or just km per litre sure would make a lot more sense mathmatically. ..... yeah i agree ..... the french go figure - actually its probably another of those din norms and no one will ever know why since reasons for it buried deeeeeeeep in some buroucrats files ..... the germans go figure - cheersm guenter .

From : bill putney

john q wrote richard sexton wrote on thing ive noticed is in france they tend to weigh food ingredients more than in america north at least. for example us cooks might sift flour and then try to measure it by volume which is moderately precise at best. french cooks will simply weigh the flour and be done with it. much more precise and takes a lot less time. probably part of the reason why the food is so good. we dont eat snails. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : richard sexton

well hell you also order meat at your friendly charcuterie in france of all places in pounds livres. germany has its zentners 100 pounds not kg. a lot of most tires and even bicycles in europe are measured in inches. i have a bitch with tire sizings everywhere why do they need to combine inches and millimeters with tire sizes pick one system and stick with it. my french michelin tires say 44 psi. perhaps there is the metric equivalent 3837402 nanozetapascaloids or something but thats the least used metric measurement ive seen here. -- need mercedes parts - http//parts.mbz.org richard sexton | mercedes stuff http//mbz.org 1970 280se 72 280se | home page http//rs79.vrx.net 633csi 250se/c 300sd | http//aquaria.net http//killi.net .

From : daniel j stern

on fri 17 feb 2006 guenter scholz wrote difference! you can still walk into any supermarkets deli counter and ask for a quarter-pound of smoked meat a half-pound of marble cheddar sliced about 1/8-inch thick and two pounds of fresh mozzarella without any problem. crap again. if you are an old foggy im sure the store is not going to turn you away when you order in pounds. im 30. i drive 100kph and the speed limits are 100 kph and i know something 100 km away will take 1 hr. the same thing here in canada highways signed in km and speedometers in km/h not kph but it works this way in mph too speed limit 65mph you drive 65mph so something 65 miles away will take 1 hr. liters/100km its just so much easier. its no easier or harder than mpg. *try* getting anything metric at rona or home despot. nope go figure..... thats because home depost is american. rona is a different story no problem with metric. so as i was saying...just *try* getting anything metric at rona. no metric hardware no metric pipefittings or pipe no metric terminals no metric lumber no metric fluoro tubes... ds .

From : daniel j stern

on fri 17 feb 2006 guenter scholz wrote can you give me any reason at all why water freezes at 32f modern folks often consider daniel fahrenheits thermometer scale less logical than anders celsius scale in which the difference in temperature between freezing and boiling water is set to 100 c. fahrenheit in his older scale originally set the difference between freezing water and human body temperature equal to 64 f. why 64 imagine making a thermometer you fill the tube with your working liquid mercury or in fahrenheits day alcohol. you put it one of your references say freezing water and mark the level. then you put it in another in your mouth for fahrenheits scale and mark the level again. now you need to divide the space between into equal divisions. if you have to make 100 divisions you need a precision steel ruler. but if you have to make 64 divisions you just need a compass and straightedge because you just need to divide the distance exactly in half 5 times 2^6 = 64. furthermore fahrenheit took advantage of an interesting coincidence to set the freezing point of water at 32 f and assign a third scale point the temperature of a stable mixture of ice salt and water to 0 f. since 2^5 = 32 this distance too can be marked off very easily with compass and straightedge. hence fahrenheits scale lent itself far easier to the manufacture of accurate thermometers at a time when precision instruments were very expensive. i never did figure out why litres per 100 km. when you are stopped you instantaneous economy is infinity. how do you average that lhopital .... thats probably why he studied limits - the question is spurious. no matter how you express fuel economy it is worsened by time when the engine is running and the car is not moving. this is reflected in the expression whether it be mpg l/100km km/l or whatever. theres no particular advantage to fixing the distance as in l/100km over fixing the fuel volume as in mpg but neither is there an advantage the other way. .

From : matthew russotto

daniel j. stern dastern@127.0.0.1 wrote modern folks often consider daniel fahrenheits thermometer scale less logical than anders celsius scale in which the difference in temperature between freezing and boiling water is set to 100 c. fahrenheit in his older scale originally set the difference between freezing water and human body temperature equal to 64 f. why 64 imagine making a thermometer you fill the tube with your working liquid mercury or in fahrenheits day alcohol. you put it one of your references say freezing water and mark the level. then you put it in another in your mouth for fahrenheits scale and mark the level again. now you need to divide the space between into equal divisions. if you have to make 100 divisions you need a precision steel ruler. but if you have to make 64 divisions you just need a compass and straightedge because you just need to divide the distance exactly in half 5 times 2^6 = 64. furthermore fahrenheit took advantage of an interesting coincidence to set the freezing point of water at 32 f and assign a third scale point the temperature of a stable mixture of ice salt and water to 0 f. since 2^5 = 32 this distance too can be marked off very easily with compass and straightedge. err he couldnt use both of those at the same time if he wanted a linear scale. in the scale where body temperature = 64 and freezing water = 32 freezing saturated brine = 20. it appears that in his final scale he used 0 32 and 96 as his fixed points. http//www.sizes.com/units/temperaturefahrenheit.htm purportes to quote original sources. -- theres no such thing as a free lunch but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. .

From : joe pfeiffer

scholz@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca guenter scholz writes guenter scholz wrote fahrenheit than you do with celsius. not sure how a numberi can be antiquated. antiquated is if its outlived its usefulness. can you give me any reason at all why water freezes at 32f i think i do know why but geeez 32 personally i thought 35.6 would have been better - because there was a particular salt solution that froze at 0 and fahrenheit figured that was as cold as anybody cared about. the better question is why average body temperature is 98.6. it was supposed to be 100. nobody really knows whether he was running a fever that day or if he mis-measured. -- joseph j. pfeiffer jr. ph.d. phone -- 505 646-1605 department of computer science fax -- 505 646-1002 new mexico state university http//www.cs.nmsu.edu/pfeiffer skype jjpfeifferjr .

From : joe pfeiffer

daniel j. stern dastern@127.0.0.1 writes modern folks often consider daniel fahrenheits thermometer scale less logical than anders celsius scale in which the difference in temperature between freezing and boiling water is set to 100 c. fahrenheit in his older scale originally set the difference between freezing water and human body temperature equal to 64 f. why 64 imagine making a thermometer you fill the tube with your working liquid mercury or in fahrenheits day alcohol. you put it one of your references say freezing water and mark the level. then you put it in another in your mouth for fahrenheits scale and mark the level again. now you need to divide the space between into equal divisions. if you have to make 100 divisions you need a precision steel ruler. but if you have to make 64 divisions you just need a compass and straightedge because you just need to divide the distance exactly in half 5 times 2^6 = 64. furthermore fahrenheit took advantage of an interesting coincidence to set the freezing point of water at 32 f and assign a third scale point the temperature of a stable mixture of ice salt and water to 0 f. since 2^5 = 32 this distance too can be marked off very easily with compass and straightedge. hence fahrenheits scale lent itself far easier to the manufacture of accurate thermometers at a time when precision instruments were very expensive. thats an explanation ive never seen before and makes 100 times more sense than any explanation i ever have seen including the one i posted roughly 60 seconds ago. do you have a cite for that id love to be able to claim that fahrenheit was more logical than celsius or any of the other centigrade systems because it was based on powers of two.... -- joseph j. pfeiffer jr. ph.d. phone -- 505 646-1605 department of computer science fax -- 505 646-1002 new mexico state university http//www.cs.nmsu.edu/pfeiffer skype jjpfeifferjr .

From : daniel j stern

on fri 17 feb 2006 guenter scholz wrote christ but youre obtuse. the point is that there is no advantage to having highways and speedometers in km/h over having highways and speedometers in mph. geez i know i should quit. i agree. the point is that calculating in 10s or 100s is easier than .... to use your example .... 65s. only if youre feebleminded and/or lazy. half of 65 is 32 rounded and half of thats 16. double 65 is 130 2-and-a-half times 65 is a little over 160 and three times 65 is a little under 200. i did all that off the top of my head in real time while typing over 100wpm. its not complex. i do not know of anywhere where the speed limit is 100mph. north america is not the extent of the world. get out more. calculating in 100s corresponds simply to moving the decimal place rather than dividing by ... to use your example .... 65. ah so you *are* feebleminded and/or lazy. .

From : daniel j stern

on fri 17 feb 2006 guenter scholz wrote can you give me any reason at all why water freezes at 32f to make 100 divisions you need a precision steel ruler. but if you have to make 64 divisions you just need a compass and straightedge because you just need to divide the distance exactly in half 5 times 2^6 = 64. i agree with the brine = 0 and body temp = 100f from what ive read. i have never come across the freezing water = 32f point that you make. however im sure the computer types would love the argument re 2^6 = 64 binary divisions .... sounds like folklore started by computer departments to me though - ... admittedly nice strory though *shrug* youve never heard it therefore its untrue eh ok ace. let us know when youve read some history. .

From : daniel j stern

on thu 16 feb 2006 john q wrote i never did figure out why litres per 100 km. when you are stopped you instantaneous economy is infinity. how do you average that its *theoretically* infinite but *practically* finite because you do not have an infinitely-capacious fuel tank. the problem does not exist. *try* getting anything metric at rona or home despot. nope go figure..... thats because home depost is american. rona is a different story no problem with metric. however considering canadas economy is geared to the uss not much of a suprise to see imperial used imperial us doesnt use imperial gallons generally. the us has never used imperial gallons. guenter doesnt know what the hell hes babbling about. you could say the same thing about tools in usa. if youre going to do much you need both systems. here i wish everything was si but tool companies like the current situation i suppose. is it easier to grab the next-bigger or next-smaller sized wrench when your choices are 8mm 9mm 10mm 11mm 12mm 13mm etc of course. does it exercise your brains math muscle to pick the next-bigger or next-smaller sized wrench when your choices are 1/4 9/32 5/16 11/32 3/8 13/32 7/16 1/2 etc you bet. is that a bad thing i dont think so. .

From : huw

richard sexton wrote well hell you also order meat at your friendly charcuterie in france of all places in pounds livres. germany has its zentners 100 pounds not kg. a lot of most tires and even bicycles in europe are measured in inches. i have a bitch with tire sizings everywhere why do they need to combine inches and millimeters with tire sizes pick one system and stick with it. my french michelin tires say 44 psi. perhaps there is the metric equivalent 3837402 nanozetapascaloids or something but thats the least used metric measurement ive seen here. bar is pretty well used and universally quoted in all car and machinery manuals. getting to use and understand its scale is just a matter of habit as is human weight and fuel consumption. huw .

From : guenter scholz

daniel j. stern dastern@127.0.0.1 wrote on fri 17 feb 2006 guenter scholz wrote can you give me any reason at all why water freezes at 32f to make 100 divisions you need a precision steel ruler. but if you have to make 64 divisions you just need a compass and straightedge because you just need to divide the distance exactly in half 5 times 2^6 = 64. i agree with the brine = 0 and body temp = 100f from what ive read. i have never come across the freezing water = 32f point that you make. however im sure the computer types would love the argument re 2^6 = 64 binary divisions .... sounds like folklore started by computer departments to me though - ... admittedly nice strory though cheers guenter .

From : guenter scholz

daniel j. stern dastern@127.0.0.1 wrote on fri 17 feb 2006 guenter scholz wrote i drive 100kph and the speed limits are 100 kph and i know something 100 km away will take 1 hr. the same thing here in canada highways signed in km and speedometers in km/h not kph but it works this way in mph too speed limit 65mph you drive 65mph so something 65 miles away will take 1 hr. except that most people here in canada couldnt do the math fast enough given that signage highway and speedos is in km cheers guenter .

From : daniel j stern

on thu 16 feb 2006 bill putney wrote we dont eat snails. a very good reason to celebrate not being french. on the other hand we also dont make headlamps worth crap so maybe thats what not eating snails costs. .

From : daniel j stern

on fri 16 feb 2006 joe pfeiffer wrote thats an explanation ive never seen before and makes 100 times more sense than any explanation i ever have seen including the one i posted roughly 60 seconds ago. do you have a cite for that i did late last night when i posted it -- not now and im getting ready for a vacation so itll have to wait til i come back! .

From : guenter scholz

daniel j. stern dastern@127.0.0.1 wrote on fri 17 feb 2006 guenter scholz wrote i drive 100kph and the speed limits are 100 kph and i know something 100 km away will take 1 hr. the same thing here in canada highways signed in km and speedometers in km/h not kph but it works this way in mph too speed limit 65mph you drive 65mph so something 65 miles away will take 1 hr. except that most people here in canada couldnt do the math fast enough given that signage highway and speedos is in km christ but youre obtuse. the point is that there is no advantage to having highways and speedometers in km/h over having highways and speedometers in mph. geez i know i should quit... but. the point is that calculating in 10s or 100s is easier than .... to use your example .... 65s. i do not know of anywhere where the speed limit is 100mph. calculating in 100s corresponds simply to moving the decimal place rather than dividing by ... to use your example .... 65. re obtuse .... pot kettle black. cheers .

From : joe pfeiffer

on thu 16 feb 2006 matthew russotto wrote modern folks often consider daniel fahrenheits thermometer scale less logical than anders celsius scale in which the difference in temperature between freezing and boiling water is set to 100 c. fahrenheit in his older scale originally set the difference between freezing water and human body temperature equal to 64 f. why 64 imagine making a thermometer you fill the tube with your working liquid mercury or in fahrenheits day alcohol. you put it one of your references say freezing water and mark the level. then you put it in another in your mouth for fahrenheits scale and mark the level again. now you need to divide the space between into equal divisions. if you have to make 100 divisions you need a precision steel ruler. but if you have to make 64 divisions you just need a compass and straightedge because you just need to divide the distance exactly in half 5 times 2^6 = 64. furthermore fahrenheit took advantage of an interesting coincidence to set the freezing point of water at 32 f and assign a third scale point the temperature of a stable mixture of ice salt and water to 0 f. since 2^5 = 32 this distance too can be marked off very easily with compass and straightedge. err he couldnt use both of those at the same time if he wanted a linear scale. why not according to this explanation the difference between water freezing and body temperature is twice the difference between the brine solution and water freezing points; hes also got twice as many degree marks between water freezing and body temperature as between brine and water freezing. thats linear.... -- joseph j. pfeiffer jr. ph.d. phone -- 505 646-1605 department of computer science fax -- 505 646-1002 new mexico state university http//www.cs.nmsu.edu/pfeiffer .

From : daniel j stern

on thu 16 feb 2006 matthew russotto wrote modern folks often consider daniel fahrenheits thermometer scale less logical than anders celsius scale in which the difference in temperature between freezing and boiling water is set to 100 c. fahrenheit in his older scale originally set the difference between freezing water and human body temperature equal to 64 f. why 64 imagine making a thermometer you fill the tube with your working liquid mercury or in fahrenheits day alcohol. you put it one of your references say freezing water and mark the level. then you put it in another in your mouth for fahrenheits scale and mark the level again. now you need to divide the space between into equal divisions. if you have to make 100 divisions you need a precision steel ruler. but if you have to make 64 divisions you just need a compass and straightedge because you just need to divide the distance exactly in half 5 times 2^6 = 64. furthermore fahrenheit took advantage of an interesting coincidence to set the freezing point of water at 32 f and assign a third scale point the temperature of a stable mixture of ice salt and water to 0 f. since 2^5 = 32 this distance too can be marked off very easily with compass and straightedge. err he couldnt use both of those at the same time if he wanted a linear scale. right. thats why body temperature is not 64. .

From : daniel j stern

on fri 17 feb 2006 guenter scholz wrote i drive 100kph and the speed limits are 100 kph and i know something 100 km away will take 1 hr. the same thing here in canada highways signed in km and speedometers in km/h not kph but it works this way in mph too speed limit 65mph you drive 65mph so something 65 miles away will take 1 hr. except that most people here in canada couldnt do the math fast enough given that signage highway and speedos is in km christ but youre obtuse. the point is that there is no advantage to having highways and speedometers in km/h over having highways and speedometers in mph. .

From : pooh bear

daniel j. stern wrote i do not know of anywhere where the speed limit is 100mph. north america is not the extent of the world. get out more. only the usa and the uk for now still use miles afaik. theres no 100 mph limit in the uk. graham .

From : guenter scholz

joe pfeiffer pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu wrote on thu 16 feb 2006 matthew russotto wrote err he couldnt use both of those at the same time if he wanted a linear scale. why not according to this explanation the difference between water because you are not going to fit 3 not related temperature datum on a straight line unless you are exceptionally lucky - cheers .

From : huw

richard sexton wrote at 3.3 bars the tires have too much and at 3.15 too litle wtf if it makes it easier then just call it 31.5 and 33. no problem see huw .

From : joe pfeiffer

daniel j. stern dastern@127.0.0.1 writes is it easier to grab the next-bigger or next-smaller sized wrench when your choices are 8mm 9mm 10mm 11mm 12mm 13mm etc of course. does it exercise your brains math muscle to pick the next-bigger or next-smaller sized wrench when your choices are 1/4 9/32 5/16 11/32 3/8 13/32 7/16 1/2 etc you bet. is that a bad thing i dont think so. my experience is that ive got the order memorized to the point that neither one is easier. *finding* a given combination wrench in their box is a bigger pain than either.... at least my sockets are in order on their rack. -- joseph j. pfeiffer jr. ph.d. phone -- 505 646-1605 department of computer science fax -- 505 646-1002 new mexico state university http//www.cs.nmsu.edu/pfeiffer .

From : guenter scholz

daniel j. stern dastern@127.0.0.1 wrote on fri 17 feb 2006 guenter scholz wrote christ but youre obtuse. the point is that there is no advantage to having highways and speedometers in km/h over having highways and speedometers in mph. geez i know i should quit. i agree. the point is that calculating in 10s or 100s is easier than .... to use your example .... 65s. only if youre feebleminded and/or lazy. half of 65 is 32 rounded and half of thats 16. double 65 is 130 2-and-a-half times 65 is a little over 160 and three times 65 is a little under 200. i did all that off the top of my head in real time while typing over 100wpm. its not complex. i do not know of anywhere where the speed limit is 100mph. north america is not the extent of the world. get out more. calculating in 100s corresponds simply to moving the decimal place rather than dividing by ... to use your example .... 65. ah so you *are* feebleminded and/or lazy. i stand corrected i am indeed ..... and its getting worse with age. enjoy your holiday cheers ps i actually have come across your explanation of the freezing water reference point but i do believe that its simply folklore. i would seriously doubt that any physicist would approach the problem in that way. critical would be to have two which makes for a straight line data points that are reproducible in a relatively simple way. additionally i believe fahrenheit tried his utmost to get away from negative temps for everyday usage indeed he tried to make a human temperature scale and for that reason set the zero low end at the ammonia/ice/water mix believing that is about as cold as it ever got anywhere danzig/gdansk that is. .

From : guenter scholz

daniel j. stern dastern@127.0.0.1 wrote on fri 17 feb 2006 guenter scholz wrote however im sure the computer types would love the argument re 2^6 = 64 binary divisions .... sounds like folklore started by computer departments to me though - ... admittedly nice strory though *shrug* youve never heard it therefore its untrue eh ok ace. let us know when youve read some history. see the smiley my admittedly feeble attempt at poking fun at the number crunchers - cheers ps i did not say that it was untrue.... simply ventured my opinion that it is likely to be folklore for reasons i explained elsewhere. .

From : richard sexton

pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote daniel j. stern wrote i do not know of anywhere where the speed limit is 100mph. north america is not the extent of the world. get out more. only the usa and the uk for now still use miles afaik. and mozambique. only the us and the poorest country in the world refuse to go metric. -- need mercedes parts - http//parts.mbz.org richard sexton | mercedes stuff http//mbz.org 1970 280se 72 280se | home page http//rs79.vrx.net 633csi 250se/c 300sd | http//aquaria.net http//killi.net .

From : richard sexton

huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote richard sexton wrote well hell you also order meat at your friendly charcuterie in france of all places in pounds livres. germany has its zentners 100 pounds not kg. a lot of most tires and even bicycles in europe are measured in inches. i have a bitch with tire sizings everywhere why do they need to combine inches and millimeters with tire sizes pick one system and stick with it. my french michelin tires say 44 psi. perhaps there is the metric equivalent 3837402 nanozetapascaloids or something but thats the least used metric measurement ive seen here. bar is pretty well used and universally quoted in all car and machinery manuals. getting to use and understand its scale is just a matter of habit as is human weight and fuel consumption. again a problem of scale as in celcius. psi is reasonably meaningfull for us when tires are in the 20-50 range. kilipascals or whatever in the 800-900 range or whatever is silly as are bars where 1 bar = 17psi or something. at 3.3 bars the tires have too much and at 3.15 too litle wtf -- need mercedes parts - http//parts.mbz.org richard sexton | mercedes stuff http//mbz.org 1970 280se 72 280se | home page http//rs79.vrx.net 633csi 250se/c 300sd | http//aquaria.net http//killi.net .

From : richard sexton

john q wrote richard sexton wrote on thing ive noticed is in france they tend to weigh food ingredients more than in america north at least. for example us cooks might sift flour and then try to measure it by volume which is moderately precise at best. french cooks will simply weigh the flour and be done with it. much more precise and takes a lot less time. probably part of the reason why the food is so good. we dont eat snails. ....except in expensive restaurants. theyre farmed in florida. yum. -- need mercedes parts - http//parts.mbz.org richard sexton | mercedes stuff http//mbz.org 1970 280se 72 280se | home page http//rs79.vrx.net 633csi 250se/c 300sd | http//aquaria.net http//killi.net .

From : richard sexton

daniel j. stern dastern@127.0.0.1 wrote on thu 16 feb 2006 bill putney wrote we dont eat snails. a very good reason to celebrate not being french. aw youre just saying that cause stouffers doesnt make them. ive seen your freezer. -- need mercedes parts - http//parts.mbz.org richard sexton | mercedes stuff http//mbz.org 1970 280se 72 280se | home page http//rs79.vrx.net 633csi 250se/c 300sd | http//aquaria.net http//killi.net .

From : joe pfeiffer

scholz@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca guenter scholz writes joe pfeiffer pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu wrote on thu 16 feb 2006 matthew russotto wrote err he couldnt use both of those at the same time if he wanted a linear scale. why not according to this explanation the difference between water because you are not going to fit 3 not related temperature datum on a straight line unless you are exceptionally lucky - or unless you carefully select the concentration of salt in the brine to make it work out right. -- joseph j. pfeiffer jr. ph.d. phone -- 505 646-1605 department of computer science fax -- 505 646-1002 new mexico state university http//www.cs.nmsu.edu/pfeiffer .

From : daniel j stern

on fri 17 feb 2006 huw wrote at 3.3 bars the tires have too much and at 3.15 too litle wtf if it makes it easier then just call it 31.5 and 33. ....which are numbers that sound suspiciously like psi. .

From : huw

daniel j. stern wrote on fri 17 feb 2006 huw wrote at 3.3 bars the tires have too much and at 3.15 too litle wtf if it makes it easier then just call it 31.5 and 33. ...which are numbers that sound suspiciously like psi. which is the reason for moving the decimal point and shows that perception of the scales is all in the mind. huw .

From : dori a schmetterlingdtj

try the m4 on a friday afternoon going west... bumper-to-bumper at 100 mph...well...actually i experienced 90+ under those conditions. so many cars about you cant go faster... - das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- ... theres no 100 mph limit in the uk. graham .

From : dtj

on 16 feb 2006 222956 -0700 joe pfeiffer pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu wrote scholz@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca guenter scholz writes guenter scholz wrote fahrenheit than you do with celsius. not sure how a numberi can be antiquated. antiquated is if its outlived its usefulness. can you give me any reason at all why water freezes at 32f i think i do know why but geeez 32 personally i thought 35.6 would have been better - because there was a particular salt solution that froze at 0 and fahrenheit figured that was as cold as anybody cared about. the better question is why average body temperature is 98.6. it was supposed to be 100. nobody really knows whether he was running a fever that day or if he mis-measured. actually from what i understand average body temp was first calculated in celsius or centigrade and was an approximate reading at best. then when you convert it to fahrenheit it comes out to 98.6. however that is not a normal reading for anyone. ************************* dave .

From : dori a schmetterling

pardon but your ignorance is showing. kilopascal 1 bar = c. 15 psi. das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- ... kilipascals or whatever in the 800-900 range or whatever is silly as are bars where 1 bar = 17psi or something. .

From : dtj

on fri 17 feb 2006 194813 +0000 utc richard@.vrx.net richard sexton wrote pooh bear rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com wrote daniel j. stern wrote i do not know of anywhere where the speed limit is 100mph. north america is not the extent of the world. get out more. only the usa and the uk for now still use miles afaik. and mozambique. only the us and the poorest country in the world refuse to go metric. i guess only the best and brightest are willing to stand up to all the lazy people in the world. ************************* dave .

From : dori a schmetterling

all just colloquialisms. not legal measure. you can certainly buy fruit in pounds but the trader can be prosecuted in the uk. the legal measure of weight is metric. some people in the uk still refer to bob shilling because its handy to say a few bob. there havent been any shillings since 1971. and there was all this moaning and goaning about getting used to the new funny decimal money. didnt take long really. only distance on roads is still miles and i cant see it changing for may years because the cost of changing the road signs would be prohibitive. same with switching to driving on other side. sweden could do it because the country is small population-wise. apparently a large fraction of cars most even were lhd too. furthermore it had long land borders with lhd countries. different ball game in the uk/ie and in large chunks of the world for that matter. das for direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- ... well hell you also order meat at your friendly charcuterie in france of all places in pounds livres. germany has its zentners 100 pounds not kg. ... .

From : bill putney

daniel j. stern wrote on thu 16 feb 2006 bill putney wrote we dont eat snails. a very good reason to celebrate not being french. on the other hand we also dont make headlamps worth crap so maybe thats what not eating snails costs. remember what you always say correlation does not equal causation. lol! bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : daniel j stern

on fri 17 feb 2006 clare@snyder.on.ca wrote actually all plywood is now metric. not in toronto its not. canadian bricks are metric. perhaps i havent bought any. you can buy metric bolts and nuts at any hardware store canadian tire home depot or whatever. not always all sizes and threads but they will be there. two or three sizes in one or two lengths covering 9 of shelf space compared to an entire aisle of inch sizes and lengths in different materials does not count as available. out here in the small towns of silicon valley north things seem to be more metricated than in the big smoke. must be! .

From : clare at snyder on ca

on 16 feb 2006 135107 -0800 daniel j. stern dastern@engin.umich.edu wrote clare wrote in the us the metric system is basically relegated to science - it is seen as a frenchystem and the yanks hate the french. things are *not* very different up here in canada and it would be disingenuous to suggest they are. sure the highways are signed in km/h and the motor fuel is sold in litres. thats the primary main difference! you can still walk into any supermarkets deli counter and ask for a quarter-pound of smoked meat a half-pound of marble cheddar sliced about 1/8-inch thick and two pounds of fresh mozzarella without any problem. the label printed on what you get might call out 115g of smoked meat 225g of marble cheddar sliced 3mm thick and 900g of fresh mozzarella but you never have to ask in metric. likewise people still talk about ikea being about 3 miles away and just you *try* getting anything metric at rona or home despot. nope everythings inch from the fluorescent tubes to the lumber actually all plywood is now metric. canadian bricks are metric. you can buy metric bolts and nuts at any hardware store canadian tire home depot or whatever. not always all sizes and threads but they will be there. plumbing supplies electrical terminals and fasteners. you can get uss and sae thread machine screws in a whole huge range of sizes but only one or two metric sizes. i had to drive clear across town to brafasco to get some 4mm screws just this week after calling half a dozen large and small toronto-area hardware and home warehouse stores without success. out here in the small towns of silicon valley north things seem to be more metricated than in the big smoke. *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .

From : matthew russotto

clare at snyder.on.ca wrote on 16 feb 2006 135107 -0800 daniel j. stern dastern@engin.umich.edu wrote actually all plywood is now metric. in an industry in which an inch doesnt equal an inch anyway not sure it makes much difference. true for thicknesses but not for length. for instance and i know this isnt plywood... 2 x 4 and a 4cm by 10cm may well be the same thickness but 8 just isnt the same length as the closest reasonably round metric number 2.5m. -- theres no such thing as a free lunch but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. .

From : bill putney

clare at snyder.on.ca wrote on 16 feb 2006 135107 -0800 daniel j. stern dastern@engin.umich.edu wrote actually all plywood is now metric. in an industry in which an inch doesnt equal an inch anyway not sure it makes much difference. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : richard sexton

dori a schmetterling ng@nospam.co.uk wrote all just colloquialisms. not legal measure. you can certainly buy fruit in pounds but the trader can be prosecuted in the uk. the legal measure of weight is metric. some people in the uk still refer to bob shilling because its handy to say a few bob. there havent been any shillings since 1971. and there was all this moaning and goaning about getting used to the new funny decimal money. didnt take long really. thats because the old system was so so messed up. metric makes a lot of sense for some things and personally its mypreferences. but on both sides of the coin ha ha i make joke there are things that are just fed up kilopascals on one side and olde english currency on the other. -- need mercedes parts - http//parts.mbz.org richard sexton | mercedes stuff http//mbz.org 1970 280se 72 280se | home page http//rs79.vrx.net 633csi 250se/c 300sd | http//aquaria.net http//killi.net .

From : dtj

on sat 18 feb 2006 103355 -0500 bill putney bptn@kinez.net wrote clare at snyder.on.ca wrote on 16 feb 2006 135107 -0800 daniel j. stern dastern@engin.umich.edu wrote actually all plywood is now metric. in an industry in which an inch doesnt equal an inch anyway not sure it makes much difference. an inch does equal in inch. you just need to understand what nominal means. it makes a big difference when you purchase the cheap shit menards is trying to pass off as plywood lately. they are selling 3/4 plywood actual not nominal that does not measure anywhere near 3/4. plays hell on someone who isnt expecting them to substitute crap and say it is the same as what everyone else sells when you have already used your 3/4 bit to cut a groove. ************************* dave .

From : dtj

on fri 17 feb 2006 214755 -0500 clare at snyder.on.ca wrote things are *not* very different up here in canada and it would be disingenuous to suggest they are. sure the highways are signed in km/h and the motor fuel is sold in litres. thats the primary main difference! you can still walk into any supermarkets deli counter and ask for a quarter-pound of smoked meat a half-pound of marble cheddar sliced about 1/8-inch thick and two pounds of fresh mozzarella without any problem. the label printed on what you get might call out 115g of smoked meat 225g of marble cheddar sliced 3mm thick and 900g of fresh mozzarella but you never have to ask in metric. likewise people still talk about ikea being about 3 miles away and just you *try* getting anything metric at rona or home despot. nope everythings inch from the fluorescent tubes to the lumber actually all plywood is now metric. canadian bricks are metric. you can buy metric bolts and nuts at any hardware store canadian tire home depot or whatever. not always all sizes and threads but they will be there. why do you insist on posting things you have no clue about. all plywood does the term all plywood mean all the plywood you have used today it sure as hell does not mean all plywood. because there is plenty of plywood available in proper sizes. of course if you insist on buying the imitation plywood that menards sells yes some is not accurately made. but if you buy your plywood from reputable lumber yards it is actually true nominal size. maybe you want to take your time think i know that must be hard for you and do some research before posting. ************************* dave .

From : dtj

on sat 18 feb 2006 155807 -0600 russotto@grace.speakeasy.net matthew russotto wrote clare at snyder.on.ca wrote on 16 feb 2006 135107 -0800 daniel j. stern dastern@engin.umich.edu wrote actually all plywood is now metric. in an industry in which an inch doesnt equal an inch anyway not sure it makes much difference. true for thicknesses but not for length. for instance and i know this isnt plywood... 2 x 4 and a 4cm by 10cm may well be the same thickness but 8 just isnt the same length as the closest reasonably round metric number 2.5m. you can get metric lengths a number of places that sell birch plywood import it from russia and the lengths are something approximating 3 by 5 whatever the metric equivalent is. i have not bought any myself but all you have to do is check some wood working sites to get the exact sizes. ************************* dave .

From : bill putney

dtj wrote on sat 18 feb 2006 103355 -0500 bill putney bptn@kinez.net wrote clare at snyder.on.ca wrote on 16 feb 2006 135107 -0800 daniel j. stern dastern@engin.umich.edu wrote actually all plywood is now metric. in an industry in which an inch doesnt equal an inch anyway not sure it makes much difference. an inch does equal in inch. you just need to understand what nominal means. it makes a big difference when you purchase the cheap shit menards is trying to pass off as plywood lately. they are selling 3/4 plywood actual not nominal that does not measure anywhere near 3/4. plays hell on someone who isnt expecting them to substitute crap and say it is the same as what everyone else sells when you have already used your 3/4 bit to cut a groove. ************************* dave i was not referring to plywood. i was referring to things like a 2 x 4 nominal cross section being something on the order of 1-3/4 x 3-1/2 or thereabouts and similar nonsense. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : guenter scholz

dtj none@nowhere.com wrote - snip - crap and say it is the same as what everyone else sells when you have already used your 3/4 bit to cut a groove. i can just imagine the exchange between the sales guy/girl at menard and dave afterward...... ouch cheers guenter .

From : wolfpuppy

length can be sawcut to whatever you want. but width and thickness are not what they purport to be. case in point--a standard 2x4 board. wrote clare at snyder.on.ca wrote on 16 feb 2006 135107 -0800 daniel j. stern dastern@engin.umich.edu wrote actually all plywood is now metric. in an industry in which an inch doesnt equal an inch anyway not sure it makes much difference. true for thicknesses but not for length. for instance and i know this isnt plywood... 2 x 4 and a 4cm by 10cm may well be the same thickness but 8 just isnt the same length as the closest reasonably round metric number 2.5m. -- theres no such thing as a free lunch but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. .

From : bob g

on sat 18 feb 2006 205436 -0600 dtj none@nowhere.com wrote on sat 18 feb 2006 103355 -0500 bill putney bptn@kinez.net wrote clare at snyder.on.ca wrote on 16 feb 2006 135107 -0800 daniel j. stern dastern@engin.umich.edu wrote actually all plywood is now metric. in an industry in which an inch doesnt equal an inch anyway not sure it makes much difference. an inch does equal in inch. you just need to understand what nominal means. it makes a big difference when you purchase the cheap shit menards is trying to pass off as plywood lately. they are selling 3/4 plywood actual not nominal that does not measure anywhere near 3/4. plays hell on someone who isnt expecting them to substitute crap and say it is the same as what everyone else sells when you have already used your 3/4 bit to cut a groove. ************************* dave ===================================================== well i own my dodgetruck just so i can haul lumber ...im a old retired fart who has been doing serious woodowrking for close to 40-50 years and since i am not 100+ years old now have never seen a real 2x4 in person unless i inspect some very old houses etc... rough lumber is sold in 4/4 5/4 8/4 thicknesses ....meaning that in the rough a 4 quarter board is 1 inch thick a 8 quarter board is 2 inches thick.... lumber mills are charging for the actual lumber they sell....no more no less. its only when i the end user runs that 4/4 rough board thru my jointer then my planner do i end up with what is called a one by x piece of lumber and it normally is surfaced to a thickness of 3/4 of an inch... plywood is another ball game...rated by the surface quality of the faces the number of veneers type of core and rough thickness not a problem cutting dado or plow cuts to fit the thickness of the plywood...when using a router etc...you make sure the bit is the correct size...3/4 inch router bits are too big...because the plywood sure is not 34 inch thick...only problem i have is that most cabinet grade ply is sold in 5 foot by 5 foot sheets... will not fit very well in the bed of the truck... bob .

From : clare at snyder on ca

on sat 18 feb 2006 205055 -0600 dtj none@nowhere.com wrote on fri 17 feb 2006 214755 -0500 clare at snyder.on.ca wrote things are *not* very different up here in canada and it would be disingenuous to suggest they are. sure the highways are signed in km/h and the motor fuel is sold in litres. thats the primary main difference! you can still walk into any supermarkets deli counter and ask for a quarter-pound of smoked meat a half-pound of marble cheddar sliced about 1/8-inch thick and two pounds of fresh mozzarella without any problem. the label printed on what you get might call out 115g of smoked meat 225g of marble cheddar sliced 3mm thick and 900g of fresh mozzarella but you never have to ask in metric. likewise people still talk about ikea being about 3 miles away and just you *try* getting anything metric at rona or home despot. nope everythings inch from the fluorescent tubes to the lumber actually all plywood is now metric. canadian bricks are metric. you can buy metric bolts and nuts at any hardware store canadian tire home depot or whatever. not always all sizes and threads but they will be there. why do you insist on posting things you have no clue about. all plywood does the term all plywood mean all the plywood you have used today it sure as hell does not mean all plywood. because there is plenty of plywood available in proper sizes. of course if you insist on buying the imitation plywood that menards sells yes some is not accurately made. but if you buy your plywood from reputable lumber yards it is actually true nominal size. maybe you want to take your time think i know that must be hard for you and do some research before posting. ************************* dave in canada all plywood is designated in metric sizes today. if you buy 3/4 canadian plywood its not 3/4 inch any more. it is 18mm. standards are 3-18mm. mabee i overstepped when i said all because we get plywood from all around the world. but all canadian standard plywood is now officially metric.as is finnish russian and most asian supplied hardwood ply many us suppliers also provide plywood in metric sizes as well as imperial these include amerply nj boise cascade champion intnlwa multinomahor murphy or oregon strand potlach wa roseburg or stone forest or and vancouver standard wa. if you get plywood from these suppliers it could be either standard. in the us the general services administration gsa metric program adm 8000.1b required that all procurement in the construction industry be in metric measurements by jan 1 1994.that doesnt mean it has necessarily happened but many federal projects do require metric design pbs-pq260 never start a plywood project assuming the plywood to be one or the other without measuring and buy all plywood for a project at the same time measuring to be sure it is the same so you do not cut rabbetts etc the wrong size. *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .

From : clare at snyder on ca

on sat 18 feb 2006 224321 -0500 bill putney bptn@kinez.net wrote dtj wrote on sat 18 feb 2006 103355 -0500 bill putney bptn@kinez.net wrote clare at snyder.on.ca wrote on 16 feb 2006 135107 -0800 daniel j. stern dastern@engin.umich.edu wrote actually all plywood is now metric. in an industry in which an inch doesnt equal an inch anyway not sure it makes much difference. an inch does equal in inch. you just need to understand what nominal means. it makes a big difference when you purchase the cheap shit menards is trying to pass off as plywood lately. they are selling 3/4 plywood actual not nominal that does not measure anywhere near 3/4. plays hell on someone who isnt expecting them to substitute crap and say it is the same as what everyone else sells when you have already used your 3/4 bit to cut a groove. ************************* dave i was not referring to plywood. i was referring to things like a 2 x 4 nominal cross section being something on the order of 1-3/4 x 3-1/2 or thereabouts and similar nonsense. bill putney nominal sise dimensional lumber has been standardised for decades.rough cut lumber is cut to or slightly larger than the stated size - then the lumber is planed to an industry agreed size - 2x4 is 1.5x 3.5. 1/8 inch is removed from both surfaces of less than 2 nominal dimension and 1/4 from both surfaces 2 and larger nominal up to 6.3/8 is removed from both surfaces larger than 6 and up to 12 so there is the 5/4 nominal lumber which is 1 decking. to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .

From : om

daniel j. stern wrote on fri 17 feb 2006 guenter scholz wrote christ but youre obtuse. the point is that there is no advantage to having highways and speedometers in km/h over having highways and speedometers in mph. geez i know i should quit. i agree. the point is that calculating in 10s or 100s is easier than .... to use your example .... 65s. only if youre feebleminded and/or lazy. half of 65 is 32 rounded and half of thats 16. double 65 is 130 2-and-a-half times 65 is a little over 160 and three times 65 is a little under 200. i did all that off the top of my head in real time while typing over 100wpm. its not complex. other peeve about the us measurement system is the volume 8 ounces = 1 cup 2 cups = 1 pint 2 pints = 1 quart 4 quarts = 1 gallon ive had the days when the recipe called for ingredient in ounces when that ingredient came in pints or cups at store. i had to do the math to ensure i have enough amount. sometimes i did the math wrong and ended up with too much or too little. in europe i could easily glance to determine how many cans bottles boxes or which amount to buy. if i lose the 1/8 cup measuring cup i have to hazard the amount by guessing with 1/4 cup measuring cup. however one cannot do it by the seat of the pants when doing the bakery. everything has to be precise for making bread dough. i do not know of anywhere where the speed limit is 100mph. north america is not the extent of the world. get out more. calculating in 100s corresponds simply to moving the decimal place rather than dividing by ... to use your example .... 65. ah so you *are* feebleminded and/or lazy. .

From : matthew russotto

other peeve about the us measurement system is the volume 8 ounces = 1 cup 2 cups = 1 pint 2 pints = 1 quart 4 quarts = 1 gallon ive had the days when the recipe called for ingredient in ounces when that ingredient came in pints or cups at store. i had to do the math to ensure i have enough amount. omg powers of two are so hard. if i lose the 1/8 cup measuring cup i have to hazard the amount by guessing with 1/4 cup measuring cup. however one cannot do it by the seat of the pants when doing the bakery. everything has to be precise for making bread dough. dont lose your measuring cup. if you lose your tools metric wont help you. -- theres no such thing as a free lunch but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. .

From : dtj

on sat 18 feb 2006 224321 -0500 bill putney bptn@kinez.net wrote an inch does equal in inch. you just need to understand what nominal means. it makes a big difference when you purchase the cheap shit menards is trying to pass off as plywood lately. they are selling 3/4 plywood actual not nominal that does not measure anywhere near 3/4. plays hell on someone who isnt expecting them to substitute crap and say it is the same as what everyone else sells when you have already used your 3/4 bit to cut a groove. i was not referring to plywood. i was referring to things like a 2 x 4 nominal cross section being something on the order of 1-3/4 x 3-1/2 or thereabouts and similar nonsense. it is the same thing bill they are sold in nominal sizes. when you buy rough lumber at a mill a 2x4 measures 2 x 4. when you joint and plane it the finished size is slightly smaller. if you go to a really good mill you can get 1 oak that actually measures as much as 1-1/4. so you are able to plane it down to a full inch for really great shelving or whatever you are doing. ************************* dave .

From : dtj

on sun 19 feb 2006 145520 -0500 clare at snyder.on.ca wrote things are *not* very different up here in canada and it would be disingenuous to suggest they are. sure the highways are signed in km/h and the motor fuel is sold in litres. thats the primary main difference! you can still walk into any supermarkets deli counter and ask for a quarter-pound of smoked meat a half-pound of marble cheddar sliced about 1/8-inch thick and two pounds of fresh mozzarella without any problem. the label printed on what you get might call out 115g of smoked meat 225g of marble cheddar sliced 3mm thick and 900g of fresh mozzarella but you never have to ask in metric. likewise people still talk about ikea being about 3 miles away and just you *try* getting anything metric at rona or home despot. nope everythings inch from the fluorescent tubes to the lumber actually all plywood is now metric. canadian bricks are metric. you can buy metric bolts and nuts at any hardware store canadian tire home depot or whatever. not always all sizes and threads but they will be there. why do you insist on posting things you have no clue about. all plywood does the term all plywood mean all the plywood you have used today it sure as hell does not mean all plywood. because there is plenty of plywood available in proper sizes. of course if you insist on buying the imitation plywood that menards sells yes some is not accurately made. but if you buy your plywood from reputable lumber yards it is actually true nominal size. maybe you want to take your time think i know that must be hard for you and do some research before posting. ************************* dave in canada all plywood is designated in metric sizes today. if you buy someone else already pointed out this is incorrect so i wont bother. ************************* dave .

From : dtj

on sun 19 feb 2006 222501 +0100 om om@none.net wrote other peeve about the us measurement system is the volume 8 ounces = 1 cup 2 cups = 1 pint 2 pints = 1 quart 4 quarts = 1 gallon and your point ive had the days when the recipe called for ingredient in ounces when that ingredient came in pints or cups at store. i had to do the math to sounds like you have trouble with math. ensure i have enough amount. sometimes i did the math wrong and ended up guess you do. with too much or too little. in europe i could easily glance to determine how many cans bottles boxes or which amount to buy. if you cant add 2 + 2 and get 4 the difference between our measurements and your simplistic ones dont matter. if i lose the 1/8 cup measuring cup i have to hazard the amount by guessing with 1/4 cup measuring cup. however one cannot do it by the seat of the pants when doing the bakery. everything has to be precise for making bread dough. nope. i make bread all the time and pizza dough and all kinds of other baked products. i never worry about getting things precise. they all come out fine. ************************* dave .

From : john q

daniel j. stern wrote the question is spurious. no matter how you express fuel economy it is worsened by time when the engine is running and the car is not moving. this is reflected in the expression whether it be mpg l/100km km/l or whatever. theres no particular advantage to fixing the distance as in l/100km over fixing the fuel volume as in mpg but neither is there an advantage the other way. i disagree. as you pointed out fuel economy is worsened when more fuel is being consumed per amount travelled. but the worse possible economy you can have with distance per fuel quantity is 0 e.g. fuel being consumed but no motion with higher numbers indicating improving economy. what is the worse economy you can have with fuel quantity per distance on a number scale in addition to measure ever improving economy you need more and more fractions between 1 and 0 rather than merely using higher and higher numbers. .

From : bill putney

john q wrote daniel j. stern wrote the question is spurious. no matter how you express fuel economy it is worsened by time when the engine is running and the car is not moving. this is reflected in the expression whether it be mpg l/100km km/l or whatever. theres no particular advantage to fixing the distance as in l/100km over fixing the fuel volume as in mpg but neither is there an advantage the other way. i disagree. as you pointed out fuel economy is worsened when more fuel is being consumed per amount travelled. but the worse possible economy you can have with distance per fuel quantity is 0 e.g. fuel being consumed but no motion... no - backing up it goes negative. actually it doesnt because unsophisitcated speed sensor signal interpretation gives absolute values. ...with higher numbers indicating improving economy. what is the worse economy you can have with fuel quantity per distance on a number scale in addition to measure ever improving economy you need more and more fractions between 1 and 0 rather than merely using higher and higher numbers. decimals work nicely. how many places do you want to take it to both systems rely on averaging over some number of sampling periods for meaningful accuracy and all but eliminating the effects of round-off errors in calculations. both fall apart as useful for consumption calculations at 0 speed. averaging falls apart for both systems if a significant portion of total fuel consumed is consumed during periods of 0 speed - but that would be very unusual. bill putney to reply by e-mail replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter x .

From : steve

guenter scholz wrote geez i know i should quit... but. the point is that calculating in 10s or 100s is easier than .... to use your example .... 65s. i do not know of anywhere where the speed limit is 100mph. calculating in 100s corresponds simply to moving the decimal place rather than dividing by ... to use your example .... 65. re obtuse .... pot kettle black. cheers you still dont get it. how long does it take to reach a town 120 miles away at 60 mph 2 hours! how long does it take to reach a town 120 kilometers away at 60 kph 2 hours! duh! unless you happen to be going to a town exactly a multiple of 10 kilometers away your advantage is not an advantage at all. it might be a slightly bigger advantage if there were 100 seconds in a minute 100 minutes in an hour and 10 hours in a day but there arent. so it isnt. and miles-per-hour has another advantage. 60 mph is 1 mile/minute and also happens to be a good rule-of-thumb average speed for a cross-country trip. so the number of miles youre going is to a first order approximation how many minutes itll take. otoh 60 kph 1 km/minute is far to slow to use as a rule of thumb and 120 kph 2 km/minute is far too fast. .

From : steve

guenter scholz wrote ps i actually have come across your explanation of the freezing water reference point but i do believe that its simply folklore. of course freezing water as a reference point is not folklore!!! its one of the most accurately reproducible physical constants that can be created any time any where that a supply of ice is available. boiling water is less accurate since atmospheric pressure skews it significantly more than the freezing point. thats grade-school science stuff no great mystery. .

From : steve

dtj wrote on sat 18 feb 2006 103355 -0500 bill putney bptn@kinez.net wrote clare at snyder.on.ca wrote on 16 feb 2006 135107 -0800 daniel j. stern dastern@engin.umich.edu wrote actually all plywood is now metric. in an industry in which an inch doesnt equal an inch anyway not sure it makes much difference. an inch does equal in inch. you just need to understand what nominal means. i think he was poking fun at the fact that a 2x4 has not been 2-inches by 4-inches since before wwii. plywood numbers thicknesses in particlar are reasonably accurate. but go measure a 2x4 and tell me what you find... - .

From : martin joseph

on 2006-02-20 124929 -0800 steve no@spam.thanks said guenter scholz wrote ps i actually have come across your explanation of the freezing water reference point but i do believe that its simply folklore. of course freezing water as a reference point is not folklore!!! its one of the most accurately reproducible physical constants that can be created any time any where that a supply of ice is available. boiling water is less accurate since atmospheric pressure skews it significantly more than the freezing point. thats grade-school science stuff no great mystery. guess you must have dropped out after grade school. freezing point is also variable depending on colligative properties and impurities in water. .

From : steve

martin joseph wrote on 2006-02-20 124929 -0800 steve no@spam.thanks said guenter scholz wrote ps i actually have come across your explanation of the freezing water reference point but i do believe that its simply folklore. of course freezing water as a reference point is not folklore!!! its one of the most accurately reproducible physical constants that can be created any time any where that a supply of ice is available. boiling water is less accurate since atmospheric pressure skews it significantly more than the freezing point. thats grade-school science stuff no great mystery. guess you must have dropped out after grade school. freezing point is also variable depending on colligative properties and impurities in water. true but for concentrations that pull the freezing point significantly far away from the freezing point of pure water you can taste the difference. and distilled water or rainwater is plenty good. tap water in many areas is good enough to get you very close. you can nit-pick and be a know-it-all all you want but its still one of the easiest-to-reproduce physical constants that exists. .

From : doug

dtj none@nowhere.com wrote in on sun 19 feb 2006 222501 +0100 om om@none.net wrote other peeve about the us measurement system is the volume 8 ounces = 1 cup 2 cups = 1 pint 2 pints = 1 quart 4 quarts = 1 gallon and your point ive had the days when the recipe called for ingredient in ounces when that ingredient came in pints or cups at store. i had to do the math to sounds like you have trouble with math. ensure i have enough amount. sometimes i did the math wrong and ended up guess you do. with too much or too little. in europe i could easily glance to determine how many cans bottles boxes or which amount to buy. if you cant add 2 + 2 and get 4 the difference between our measurements and your simplistic ones dont matter. if i lose the 1/8 cup measuring cup i have to hazard the amount by guessing with 1/4 cup measuring cup. however one cannot do it by the seat of the pants when doing the bakery. everything has to be precise for making bread dough. nope. i make bread all the time and pizza dough and all kinds of other baked products. i never worry about getting things precise. they all come out fine. ************************* dave hell if youre going to be precise in baking youd better measure your flour by weight and not volume. of cource the vagarities in heat and humidity of the weather also wreak haovic to the precise baker. the complaint about the two bu fours belies a lack of carpentry experience. hell just get it framed the sheet rock and mud will cover it anyway. and if youre making furniture you wouldnt trust someone else to do your measuring for you. by show of hands how many take a tape with you to lowes/home depot how many get their lumber for furniture projects from lowes/home depot/ insert whatever big box home improvement store here. doug .

From : guenter scholz

martin joseph wrote -snip- irrelevant stuff true but for concentrations that pull the freezing point significantly far away from the freezing point of pure water you can taste the difference. and distilled water or rainwater is plenty good. tap water in many areas is good enough to get you very close. i can just see it imagine the supervisor and student exchange supervisor did you check the purity of the water in the flask beside the beaker of hcl student crap i thought the water was in the beaker cheers ps little excercise for steve town is 590 miles away with a speed limit of 75 mph ..... how long does it take well 590/75 hr ... probably a instant answer is not forthcoming. now imagine same town is quoted as 945 km away with a speed limit of 100 kph ..... how long does it take well 945/100 ... instant answer of 945 hr. nest ce pas ... re duhh pot kettle black lesson learned there you go! .

From : joe pfeiffer

scholz@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca guenter scholz writes ps little excercise for steve town is 590 miles away with a speed limit of 75 mph ..... how long does it take well 590/75 hr ... probably a instant answer is not forthcoming. now imagine same town is quoted as 945 km away with a speed limit of 100 kph ..... how long does it take well 945/100 ... instant answer of 945 hr. nest ce pas ... re duhh pot kettle black if it were the 100 kph road its probably be 60 mph not 75. 600 minutes 10 hours. otoh if it were the 75 mph road it would probably be 120 kph not 100. 945/120... probably not so instant though after blinking once youd realize its almost 960/120 = 8 hours. -- joseph j. pfeiffer jr. ph.d. phone -- 505 646-1605 department of computer science fax -- 505 646-1002 new mexico state university http//www.cs.nmsu.edu/pfeiffer .

From : guenter scholz

joe pfeiffer pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu wrote otoh if it were the 75 mph road it would probably be 120 kph not 100. 945/120... probably not so instant though after blinking once youd realize its almost 960/120 = 8 hours. -- sure to a lot of people...... on the other hand are you aware of the general level of arithmetic ability im not talking math out in the general population cheers guenter .

From : clare at snyder on ca

on mon 20 feb 2006 133904 -0800 martin joseph mercedes@spamnotbarknaturalpet.com wrote on 2006-02-20 124929 -0800 steve no@spam.thanks said guenter scholz wrote ps i actually have come across your explanation of the freezing water reference point but i do believe that its simply folklore. of course freezing water as a reference point is not folklore!!! its one of the most accurately reproducible physical constants that can be created any time any where that a supply of ice is available. boiling water is less accurate since atmospheric pressure skews it significantly more than the freezing point. thats grade-school science stuff no great mystery. guess you must have dropped out after grade school. freezing point is also variable depending on colligative properties and impurities in water. so you use distilled water - takes out 90+% of the already small variance. *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .

From : steve

guenter scholz wrote ps little excercise for steve town is 590 miles away with a speed limit of 75 mph ..... how long does it take well 590/75 hr ... probably a instant answer is not forthcoming. now imagine same town is quoted as 945 km away with a speed limit of 100 kph ..... how long does it take well 945/100 ... instant answer of 945 hr. nest ce pas ... re duhh pot kettle black lesson learned there you go! if thats your lesson its a stupid lesson. is it so hard to see the obvious fact that regardless of what system is selected you can pick speed limits and/or distances that are easy to get quick answers. 100 kph guarantees an easy answer but so does 60 mph. there is no difference in practical terms!!! besides if you can go 590 miles or 945 km at a constant speed with no stops then you must be peeing in your shoes because *my* bladder sure aint that big. .

From : joe pfeiffer

scholz@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca guenter scholz writes joe pfeiffer pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu wrote otoh if it were the 75 mph road it would probably be 120 kph not 100. 945/120... probably not so instant though after blinking once youd realize its almost 960/120 = 8 hours. -- sure to a lot of people...... on the other hand are you aware of the general level of arithmetic ability im not talking math out in the general population good point.. -- joseph j. pfeiffer jr. ph.d. phone -- 505 646-1605 department of computer science fax -- 505 646-1002 new mexico state university http//www.cs.nmsu.edu/pfeiffer .

From : wolfpuppy

well hes right about the baking though. baking does require more precise measures than does general cooking. when a recipe calls for a cup of flour you scrape the cup with a knife so you have exactly one cup. i like making bread too but you can blow the recipe in a heartbeat if you disregard the proper measures. on sun 19 feb 2006 222501 +0100 om om@none.net wrote other peeve about the us measurement system is the volume 8 ounces = 1 cup 2 cups = 1 pint 2 pints = 1 quart 4 quarts = 1 gallon and your point ive had the days when the recipe called for ingredient in ounces when that ingredient came in pints or cups at store. i had to do the math to sounds like you have trouble with math. ensure i have enough amount. sometimes i did the math wrong and ended up guess you do. with too much or too little. in europe i could easily glance to determine how many cans bottles boxes or which amount to buy. if you cant add 2 + 2 and get 4 the difference between our measurements and your simplistic ones dont matter. if i lose the 1/8 cup measuring cup i have to hazard the amount by guessing with 1/4 cup measuring cup. however one cannot do it by the seat of the pants when doing the bakery. everything has to be precise for making bread dough. nope. i make bread all the time and pizza dough and all kinds of other baked products. i never worry about getting things precise. they all come out fine. ************************* dave .

From : wolfpuppy

it all depends....are you driving a mercedes benz guenter scholz wrote geez i know i should quit... but. the point is that calculating in 10s or 100s is easier than .... to use your example .... 65s. i do not know of anywhere where the speed limit is 100mph. calculating in 100s corresponds simply to moving the decimal place rather than dividing by ... to use your example .... 65. re obtuse .... pot kettle black. cheers you still dont get it. how long does it take to reach a town 120 miles away at 60 mph 2 hours! how long does it take to reach a town 120 kilometers away at 60 kph 2 hours! duh! unless you happen to be going to a town exactly a multiple of 10 kilometers away your advantage is not an advantage at all. it might be a slightly bigger advantage if there were 100 seconds in a minute 100 minutes in an hour and 10 hours in a day but there arent. so it isnt. and miles-per-hour has another advantage. 60 mph is 1 mile/minute and also happens to be a good rule-of-thumb average speed for a cross-country trip. so the number of miles youre going is to a first order approximation how many minutes itll take. otoh 60 kph 1 km/minute is far to slow to use as a rule of thumb and 120 kph 2 km/minute is far too fast. .

From : wolfpuppy

if you lose your measuring cup just remember that four tablespoons is 1/4 cup and of course two would be 1/8 cup. damn what a long thread..... daniel j. stern wrote on fri 17 feb 2006 guenter scholz wrote christ but youre obtuse. the point is that there is no advantage to having highways and speedometers in km/h over having highways and speedometers in mph. geez i know i should quit. i agree. the point is that calculating in 10s or 100s is easier than .... to use your example .... 65s. only if youre feebleminded and/or lazy. half of 65 is 32 rounded and half of thats 16. double 65 is 130 2-and-a-half times 65 is a little over 160 and three times 65 is a little under 200. i did all that off the top of my head in real time while typing over 100wpm. its not complex. other peeve about the us measurement system is the volume 8 ounces = 1 cup 2 cups = 1 pint 2 pints = 1 quart 4 quarts = 1 gallon ive had the days when the recipe called for ingredient in ounces when that ingredient came in pints or cups at store. i had to do the math to ensure i have enough amount. sometimes i did the math wrong and ended up with too much or too little. in europe i could easily glance to determine how many cans bottles boxes or which amount to buy. if i lose the 1/8 cup measuring cup i have to hazard the amount by guessing with 1/4 cup measuring cup. however one cannot do it by the seat of the pants when doing the bakery. everything has to be precise for making bread dough. i do not know of anywhere where the speed limit is 100mph. north america is not the extent of the world. get out more. calculating in 100s corresponds simply to moving the decimal place rather than dividing by ... to use your example .... 65. ah so you *are* feebleminded and/or lazy. .

From : dtj

on tue 21 feb 2006 170552 -0500 wolfpuppy togrul@fuse.net wrote on sun 19 feb 2006 222501 +0100 om om@none.net wrote if i lose the 1/8 cup measuring cup i have to hazard the amount by guessing with 1/4 cup measuring cup. however one cannot do it by the seat of the pants when doing the bakery. everything has to be precise for making bread dough. nope. i make bread all the time and pizza dough and all kinds of other baked products. i never worry about getting things precise. they all come out fine. top posting corrected well hes right about the baking though. baking does require more precise measures than does general cooking. when a recipe calls for a cup of flour you scrape the cup with a knife so you have exactly one cup. i like making bread too but you can blow the recipe in a heartbeat if you disregard the proper measures. not so unless you are using one of those stupid bread machines or something. hell a cake is far more critical than bread and i dont ever worry about getting the flour flat across the top mainly because most of my measuring cups are 2-cups. when i first started baking from scratch i tried to adhere to precise measurements and had lots of failures. now i dont worry about it and everything works fine. i think it is the analness that causes the problem. ************************* dave .

From : steve

wolfpuppy wrote it all depends....are you driving a mercedes benz if you are factor in 4 hours in gunters garage for every 1 hour on the road. .

From : guenter scholz

steve no@spam.thanks wrote wolfpuppy wrote it all depends....are you driving a mercedes benz if you are factor in 4 hours in gunters garage for every 1 hour on the road. - no kidding feels like that sometimes with my mercedes. on and about 250k km seems to me from my experience is when many items need to be repaired. moreover just cant bring myself to always go to the dealer. .

From : clare at snyder on ca

on wed 22 feb 2006 191628 +0000 utc scholz@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca guenter scholz wrote steve no@spam.thanks wrote wolfpuppy wrote it all depends....are you driving a mercedes benz if you are factor in 4 hours in gunters garage for every 1 hour on the road. - no kidding feels like that sometimes with my mercedes. on and about 250k km seems to me from my experience is when many items need to be repaired. moreover just cant bring myself to always go to the dealer. if you have to ask how much one costs you cant afford to maintain one. they have a reputation in some parts of going forever - but they ar a bit like great great-grand-dads axe. its the same axe he brought with him to this country 150 years ago. the heads been replaced 3 times and its on its 10th handle - but its still the original axe!!!! *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .

From : steve

clare at snyder.on.ca wrote on wed 22 feb 2006 191628 +0000 utc scholz@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca guenter scholz wrote steve no@spam.thanks wrote wolfpuppy wrote it all depends....are you driving a mercedes benz if you are factor in 4 hours in gunters garage for every 1 hour on the road. - no kidding feels like that sometimes with my mercedes. on and about 250k km seems to me from my experience is when many items need to be repaired. moreover just cant bring myself to always go to the dealer. if you have to ask how much one costs you cant afford to maintain one. they have a reputation in some parts of going forever - but they ar a bit like great great-grand-dads axe. its the same axe he brought with him to this country 150 years ago. the heads been replaced 3 times and its on its 10th handle - but its still the original axe!!!! all joking aside i do appreciate cars engineered so that you can keep replacing parts that wear out instead of having to pretend its a bic disposable and throw the thing away. american cars were like that until the 70s and trucks still are in most cases. japanese cars were *never* like that which is why ill never own one. .

From : richard sexton

guenter scholz scholz@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca wrote steve no@spam.thanks wrote wolfpuppy wrote it all depends....are you driving a mercedes benz if you are factor in 4 hours in gunters garage for every 1 hour on the road. - no kidding feels like that sometimes with my mercedes. on and about 250k km seems to me from my experience is when many items need to be repaired. moreover just cant bring myself to always go to the dealer. thats a 190 for you. i bought my 300sd 7 years ago for $1800 with 189k miles on it. its been in the shop 3 times since then about $350 per and has 400k miles on it now. i did work on it myself for 2 weeks 2 years ago. -- need mercedes parts - http//parts.mbz.org richard sexton | mercedes stuff http//mbz.org 1970 280se 72 280se | home page http//rs79.vrx.net 633csi 250se/c 300sd | http//aquaria.net http//killi.net .

From : guenter scholz

clarence at snyder dot on dot ca wrote - no kidding feels like that sometimes with my mercedes. on and about 250k km seems to me from my experience is when many items need to be repaired. moreover just cant bring myself to always go to the dealer. if you have to ask how much one costs you cant afford to maintain one. they have a reputation in some parts of going forever - but they ar a bit like great great-grand-dads axe. its the same axe he brought with him to this country 150 years ago. the heads been replaced 3 times and its on its 10th handle - but its still the original axe!!!! i assume you are suggesting that one should throw them away when problems develop.... are you kidding me thats why i bought benzes in the first place. my 300 has had no problems well except the evaporator and the waterpump i recently replaced for the past 250k km. the car is in like show room condition. sure i can let the dealer do it but hey i actually enjoy fixing the easy stuff water pump not evaporator. do i need a brand new mercedes no why should i. i couldnt be happier with the one ive got...... and it has nothing to do with any nostalgia. there is nothing the newer cars offer that i really want..... well my wife does complain about the absence of cupholders... i give the cup to her and suggest to her that she might be the cupholder - .... she doesnt see the humour cheers .

From : daniel j stern

on mon 20 feb 2006 john q wrote no matter how you express fuel economy it is worsened by time when the engine is running and the car is not moving. this is reflected in the expression whether it be mpg l/100km km/l or whatever. theres no particular advantage to fixing the distance as in l/100km over fixing the fuel volume as in mpg but neither is there an advantage the other way. i disagree. as you pointed out fuel economy is worsened when more fuel is being consumed per amount travelled. but the worse possible economy you can have with distance per fuel quantity is 0 e.g. fuel being consumed but no motion with higher numbers indicating improving economy. what is the worse economy you can have with fuel quantity per distance on a number scale in theory/on paper it blows up in your face because youre dividing a number by zero. but in practice in the real world human beings are not computers who can only emit showers of sparks wave our arms spastically and endlessly repeat error! error! error! in a monotone when faced with such a situation. instead we say the worst economy possible is zero. its one of those things that works in practice butll never work in theory. in addition to measure ever improving economy you need more and more fractions between 1 and 0 rather than merely using higher and higher numbers. again youre getting hung up on irrelevant theory. in the real world so far fuel economy is always considerably worse than 1 litre/100km so the problem you mention here does not exist. .

From : richard sexton

daniel j. stern dastern@127.0.0.1 wrote in theory/on paper it blows up in your face because youre dividing a number by zero. but in practice in the real world human beings are not computers who can only emit showers of sparks wave our arms spastically and endlessly repeat error! error! error! in a monotone when faced with such a situation. instead we say the worst economy possible is zero. speak for yourself stern. -- need mercedes parts - http//parts.mbz.org richard sexton | mercedes stuff http//mbz.org 1970 280se 72 280se | home page http//rs79.vrx.net 633csi 250se/c 300sd | http//aquaria.net http//killi.net .

From : clare at snyder on ca

on wed 22 feb 2006 155412 -0600 steve no@spam.thanks wrote all joking aside i do appreciate cars engineered so that you can keep replacing parts that wear out instead of having to pretend its a bic disposable and throw the thing away. american cars were like that until the 70s and trucks still are in most cases. japanese cars were *never* like that which is why ill never own one. actually they were. the old rear drive corollascoronas celicas hilux and land cruisers could be kept on the road virtually forever. ive seen many of each well over the 1/4 million miles. the old cruiser was basically a late forties or early fifties chevy. half of it was made under licence from gm. the old f engine was a metric stovebolt and an early chevy engine would basically drop in. *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .

From : clare at snyder on ca

on thu 23 feb 2006 010706 +0000 utc scholz@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca guenter scholz wrote clarence at snyder dot on dot ca wrote - no kidding feels like that sometimes with my mercedes. on and about 250k km seems to me from my experience is when many items need to be repaired. moreover just cant bring myself to always go to the dealer. if you have to ask how much one costs you cant afford to maintain one. they have a reputation in some parts of going forever - but they ar a bit like great great-grand-dads axe. its the same axe he brought with him to this country 150 years ago. the heads been replaced 3 times and its on its 10th handle - but its still the original axe!!!! i assume you are suggesting that one should throw them away when problems develop.... are you kidding me thats why i bought benzes in the first place. my 300 has had no problems well except the evaporator and the waterpump i recently replaced for the past 250k km. the car is in like show room condition. sure i can let the dealer do it but hey i actually enjoy fixing the easy stuff water pump not evaporator. do i need a brand new mercedes no why should i. i couldnt be happier with the one ive got...... and it has nothing to do with any nostalgia. there is nothing the newer cars offer that i really want..... well my wife does complain about the absence of cupholders... i give the cup to her and suggest to her that she might be the cupholder - .... she doesnt see the humour cheers i know i have friends with mercedes too and some have had excellent luck. particularly the older 300 series etc - but the e-class later model cars have been as bad as cadillacs - spending more time in the shop than on the road. and i definitely do not suggest you throw a car away when problems develop - unless they are either way to expensive to fix or the problems arrise too often. and then i dont advocate throwing them away. one mans garbage is another mans treasure - so find someone who wants what you dont want and is willing to pay you good money for it. he might have better luck than you have had - or just be more willing to spend time and money on it because of his infatuation with that particular make/model or whatever. my pontiac transport has 334000km on it. the previous owner replaced all the suspension parts before i got it. i put in a new engine at 275000 because i bought it when the previous original owner decided to stop pouring money into it. i put a rebuilt tranny in at about 300000.i replaced the windsheild. about all thats left of the original is the plastic body and interior. oh yes and still the original exhaust. its still the original axe though!!! *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .

From : steve

clare at snyder.on.ca wrote i know i have friends with mercedes too and some have had excellent luck. particularly the older 300 series etc - but the e-class later model cars have been as bad as cadillacs - spending more time in the shop than on the road. and ironically at the same time mid 90s that many mercedes models turned into unreliable money-pits the cadillacs started getting incredibly reliable again after a 25 year journey through hell. credit for the improvement goes to the northstar drivetrain. nice piece of engineering there. of course they cost darn near as much as the mercedes now.... .

From : wolfpuppy

my wife does complain about the absence of cupholders... i give the cup to her and suggest to her that she might be the cupholder - .... she doesnt see the humour you had better be careful. if i said that shed probably hand me back my cup--upside down! - .

From : clare at snyder on ca

on thu 23 feb 2006 170855 -0600 steve no@spam.thanks wrote clare at snyder.on.ca wrote i know i have friends with mercedes too and some have had excellent luck. particularly the older 300 series etc - but the e-class later model cars have been as bad as cadillacs - spending more time in the shop than on the road. and ironically at the same time mid 90s that many mercedes models turned into unreliable money-pits the cadillacs started getting incredibly reliable again after a 25 year journey through hell. credit for the improvement goes to the northstar drivetrain. nice piece of engineering there. of course they cost darn near as much as the mercedes now.... 3 customers of mine - lifelong caddy owners and also friends have gotten rid of their caddies in the last 2 years and got lexus. after the last 3 caddies including an escalade and a ctx spent more time at the dealership than at home and he had to spend too much time chasing them back and forth the first friend bought a lexus 450 suv. after having the caddy let him down just about every time he took it out of town - just about everything but the engine and between ontario and florida or between ontario and north carolina the second friend bought a 300 series lexus sedan. third one just got fed up with all the little stuff that kept failing - again and again and again. got a lexus sedan as well. another friend - who just celebrated his 60th anniversary is replacing his wifes caddy with a new avalon. he currently has a lexus 300 series that replaced his old bmw lwb. they used to use the caddy its 3 years old now going back and forth to michigan state for the college football games his alma mater and theyve had suspension problems let them down 4 or 5 times - they dont take it out of town any more -havent for over a year - none of the dealers whove looked at it have been able to pin down the problem. 3rd or 4th caddy and he says its the last one. at 85 he cant waste time with an unreliable car. the engines have not been totally without problems either. the first guy has has 2 northstars go south under warranty and he takes good care of everything he owns. *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .

From : wolfpuppy

no you are absolutely wrong. baking requires precise measures and i am not talking about bread machines. but you are obviously not going to believe me and i havent got the time to convince you of something everyone else already knows. ask a chef. on tue 21 feb 2006 170552 -0500 wolfpuppy togrul@fuse.net wrote on sun 19 feb 2006 222501 +0100 om om@none.net wrote if i lose the 1/8 cup measuring cup i have to hazard the amount by guessing with 1/4 cup measuring cup. however one cannot do it by the seat of the pants when doing the bakery. everything has to be precise for making bread dough. nope. i make bread all the time and pizza dough and all kinds of other baked products. i never worry about getting things precise. they all come out fine. top posting corrected well hes right about the baking though. baking does require more precise measures than does general cooking. when a recipe calls for a cup of flour you scrape the cup with a knife so you have exactly one cup. i like making bread too but you can blow the recipe in a heartbeat if you disregard the proper measures. not so unless you are using one of those stupid bread machines or something. hell a cake is far more critical than bread and i dont ever worry about getting the flour flat across the top mainly because most of my measuring cups are 2-cups. when i first started baking from scratch i tried to adhere to precise measurements and had lots of failures. now i dont worry about it and everything works fine. i think it is the analness that causes the problem. ************************* dave .

From : wolfpuppy

steve no@spam.thanks wrote wolfpuppy wrote it all depends....are you driving a mercedes benz if you are factor in 4 hours in gunters garage for every 1 hour on the road. - no kidding feels like that sometimes with my mercedes. on and about 250k km seems to me from my experience is when many items need to be repaired. moreover just cant bring myself to always go to the dealer. i must be a very lucky person. my 83 300sd is at a bit over 338k miles with no majors nor do any majors appear to be needed. still looks almost like a new car when washed and waxed too. .

From : st john smythe

wolfpuppy wrote if you two would agree to knock off the bickering i would be happy to explain how you both could be right on that particular point. you have the floor sir. first the most critical proportion is arguably between flour and liquid. you may have noticed that directions vary widely regarding measuring flour sifted unsifted or by weight. next if you watch a master baker youll notice that even after meticulous measurement after mixing therell often be the addition of small amounts of liquid or flour in order to get the consistency just right based on that persons experience. speaking as someone who when it comes to measuring ingredients can almost put mr. monk to shame -- in the final analysis the experienced hand and eye of the baker has to trump the graduations on the side of measuring vessels. so id say that you two are both right in the perspectives from which you are respectively arguing. obmercedes which mercedes model of the last 30 years or so has the best access for repair purposes -- st. john how much water to make this recipe about a mouthful. -anonymous annoyed cook .

From : dtj

on fri 24 feb 2006 171753 -0500 wolfpuppy togrul@fuse.net wrote on tue 21 feb 2006 170552 -0500 wolfpuppy togrul@fuse.net wrote on sun 19 feb 2006 222501 +0100 om om@none.net wrote if i lose the 1/8 cup measuring cup i have to hazard the amount by guessing with 1/4 cup measuring cup. however one cannot do it by the seat of the pants when doing the bakery. everything has to be precise for making bread dough. nope. i make bread all the time and pizza dough and all kinds of other baked products. i never worry about getting things precise. they all come out fine. top posting corrected well hes right about the baking though. baking does require more precise measures than does general cooking. when a recipe calls for a cup of flour you scrape the cup with a knife so you have exactly one cup. i like making bread too but you can blow the recipe in a heartbeat if you disregard the proper measures. not so unless you are using one of those stupid bread machines or something. hell a cake is far more critical than bread and i dont ever worry about getting the flour flat across the top mainly because most of my measuring cups are 2-cups. when i first started baking from scratch i tried to adhere to precise measurements and had lots of failures. now i dont worry about it and everything works fine. i think it is the analness that causes the problem. top posting idiocy corrected... no you are absolutely wrong. baking requires precise measures and i am not talking about bread machines. but you are obviously not going to believe me and i havent got the time to convince you of something everyone else already knows. ask a chef. ui dont need to ask a chef i bake often enough to know. simple logic will suffice. you claim that if one is not precise the item will not come out right. i am never precise in baking and everything i make comes out just fine. obviously your baking skills are as bad as your posting skills. ************************* dave .

From : st john smythe

wolfpuppy wrote never precise and everything comes out fine. yeah right. if you two would agree to knock off the bickering i would be happy to explain how you both could be right on that particular point. -- st. john .

From : wolfpuppy

wolfpuppy wrote never precise and everything comes out fine. yeah right. if you two would agree to knock off the bickering i would be happy to explain how you both could be right on that particular point. -- st. john you have the floor sir. .

From : wolfpuppy

on fri 24 feb 2006 171753 -0500 wolfpuppy togrul@fuse.net wrote on tue 21 feb 2006 170552 -0500 wolfpuppy togrul@fuse.net wrote on sun 19 feb 2006 222501 +0100 om om@none.net wrote if i lose the 1/8 cup measuring cup i have to hazard the amount by guessing with 1/4 cup measuring cup. however one cannot do it by the seat of the pants when doing the bakery. everything has to be precise for making bread dough. nope. i make bread all the time and pizza dough and all kinds of other baked products. i never worry about getting things precise. they all come out fine. top posting corrected well hes right about the baking though. baking does require more precise measures than does general cooking. when a recipe calls for a cup of flour you scrape the cup with a knife so you have exactly one cup. i like making bread too but you can blow the recipe in a heartbeat if you disregard the proper measures. not so unless you are using one of those stupid bread machines or something. hell a cake is far more critical than bread and i dont ever worry about getting the flour flat across the top mainly because most of my measuring cups are 2-cups. when i first started baking from scratch i tried to adhere to precise measurements and had lots of failures. now i dont worry about it and everything works fine. i think it is the analness that causes the problem. top posting idiocy corrected... no you are absolutely wrong. baking requires precise measures and i am not talking about bread machines. but you are obviously not going to believe me and i havent got the time to convince you of something everyone else already knows. ask a chef. ui dont need to ask a chef i bake often enough to know. simple logic will suffice. you claim that if one is not precise the item will not come out right. i am never precise in baking and everything i make comes out just fine. obviously your baking skills are as bad as your posting skills. ************************* dave you are not a cook and obviously not a good baker saying what you are saying. to deny that baking does not require as precise measures as other cooking is absurd. i suppose i could quote from chefs ive studied under or from a couple of cooking textbooks but obviously youve made up your mind and wouldnt listen. i certainly dont need to prove the obvious. as far as posting skills go you are the one who feels the need to resort to personnal attacks which is an obvious ploy when one cant use facts or truth to back up their argument. never precise and everything comes out fine. yeah right. .

From : clare at snyder on ca

on fri 24 feb 2006 200512 -0500 wolfpuppy togrul@fuse.net wrote on fri 24 feb 2006 171753 -0500 wolfpuppy togrul@fuse.net wrote on tue 21 feb 2006 170552 -0500 wolfpuppy togrul@fuse.net wrote on sun 19 feb 2006 222501 +0100 om om@none.net wrote if i lose the 1/8 cup measuring cup i have to hazard the amount by guessing with 1/4 cup measuring cup. however one cannot do it by the seat of the pants when doing the bakery. everything has to be precise for making bread dough. nope. i make bread all the time and pizza dough and all kinds of other baked products. i never worry about getting things precise. they all come out fine. top posting corrected well hes right about the baking though. baking does require more precise measures than does general cooking. when a recipe calls for a cup of flour you scrape the cup with a knife so you have exactly one cup. i like making bread too but you can blow the recipe in a heartbeat if you disregard the proper measures. not so unless you are using one of those stupid bread machines or something. hell a cake is far more critical than bread and i dont ever worry about getting the flour flat across the top mainly because most of my measuring cups are 2-cups. when i first started baking from scratch i tried to adhere to precise measurements and had lots of failures. now i dont worry about it and everything works fine. i think it is the analness that causes the problem. top posting idiocy corrected... no you are absolutely wrong. baking requires precise measures and i am not talking about bread machines. but you are obviously not going to believe me and i havent got the time to convince you of something everyone else already knows. ask a chef. ui dont need to ask a chef i bake often enough to know. simple logic will suffice. you claim that if one is not precise the item will not come out right. i am never precise in baking and everything i make comes out just fine. obviously your baking skills are as bad as your posting skills. ************************* dave you are not a cook and obviously not a good baker saying what you are saying. to deny that baking does not require as precise measures as other cooking is absurd. i suppose i could quote from chefs ive studied under or from a couple of cooking textbooks but obviously youve made up your mind and wouldnt listen. i certainly dont need to prove the obvious. as far as posting skills go you are the one who feels the need to resort to personnal attacks which is an obvious ploy when one cant use facts or truth to back up their argument. never precise and everything comes out fine. yeah right. depends what you are baking. bread can be pretty well all over the map and still come out ok while cakes and pastries need much closer controls. when my daughter says shell make a cake - thats theory. when she makes it thats concrete. *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .

From : richard sexton

obmercedes which mercedes model of the last 30 years or so has the best access for repair purposes best 126 diesel. worst 300sel 6.3 im amazed this thread-that-will-not-die actually cameback to something mb but then usenet never ceases to amaze me. -- need mercedes parts - http//parts.mbz.org richard sexton | mercedes stuff http//mbz.org 1970 280se 72 280se | home page http//rs79.vrx.net 633csi 250se/c 300sd | http//aquaria.net http//killi.net .

From : huw

richard sexton wrote obmercedes which mercedes model of the last 30 years or so has the best access for repair purposes best 126 diesel. worst 300sel 6.3 im amazed this thread-that-will-not-die actually cameback to something mb but then usenet never ceases to amaze me. f*** mercedes. baking is far more interesting. fwiw the best chefs only use measures in approximation and often just use their experienced eye to throw the ingredients together yet they cook food that is invariably delicious. an example is the maverick wine slurper floyd. http//www.bbc.co.uk/cult/classic/titles/clip10.shtml http//www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/203-5051575-1631925 and jamie oliver http//www.bbc.co.uk/food/chefbiogs/m.shtml#jamieoliver huw .

From : richard sexton

huw hedyddnospam@tiscali.co.uk wrote richard sexton wrote obmercedes which mercedes model of the last 30 years or so has the best access for repair purposes best 126 diesel. worst 300sel 6.3 im amazed this thread-that-will-not-die actually cameback to something mb but then usenet never ceases to amaze me. f*** mercedes. baking is far more interesting. fwiw the best chefs only use measures in approximation and often just use their experienced eye to throw the ingredients together yet they cook food that is invariably delicious. an example is the maverick wine slurper floyd. http//www.bbc.co.uk/cult/classic/titles/clip10.shtml http//www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/203-5051575-1631925 and jamie oliver http//www.bbc.co.uk/food/chefbiogs/m.shtml#jamieoliver teah well ive seen jamie oliver and ive seen a 6.3. jaimes funny but a 6.3 has far greater entertainment value. -- need mercedes parts - http//parts.mbz.org richard sexton | mercedes stuff http//mbz.org 1970 280se 72 280se | home page http//rs79.vrx.net 633csi 250se/c 300sd | http//aquaria.net http//killi.net .

From : wolfpuppy

richard sexton wrote obmercedes which mercedes model of the last 30 years or so has the best access for repair purposes best 126 diesel. worst 300sel 6.3 im amazed this thread-that-will-not-die actually cameback to something mb but then usenet never ceases to amaze me. f*** mercedes. baking is far more interesting. fwiw the best chefs only use measures in approximation and often just use their experienced eye to throw the ingredients together yet they cook food that is invariably delicious. an example is the maverick wine slurper floyd. http//www.bbc.co.uk/cult/classic/titles/clip10.shtml http//www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/203-5051575-1631925 and jamie oliver http//www.bbc.co.uk/food/chefbiogs/m.shtml#jamieoliver huw the best chefs do not approximate measures. the fact that they dont need to measure everything exactly is because they are in fact experienced enough to do so. just because some of these chefs make it look easy doesnt always mean that it is. anyway the gist of the argument was simply that one needs to be more precise in their measures most specifically the dry ingredients when baking breads and cakes than when making soup. not that you need to use a micrometer but you cant just throw flour in the bread mix and say yeah that looks like a cup. your example of a best chef might be able to eyeball a cup close enough but those that dont cook for a living or bake daily would be well served to have some measuring cups handy. but ill agree with you on your point that cooking is indeed very interesting especially to those of us who love to eat and would rather make something from scratch than eat take-away. sharing a good recipe is always a good thing eh .

From : wolfpuppy

on sat 25 feb 2006 011228 gmt st. john smythe sinjen@n4vu.com wrote wolfpuppy wrote never precise and everything comes out fine. yeah right. if you two would agree to knock off the bickering i would be happy to explain how you both could be right on that particular point. dont need to explain it to me i know why he cant bake. ************************* dave dave ive probably forgotten more about cooking than you know. but since you seem so inclined to be childish about this whole thing and you seem to be the only one who is why dont you let the rest of us in on your vast experience in the culinary field. like where have you cooked and for how long. i realize that honesty may not be your forte but i would be interested in your response nonetheless. we probably all would. .

From : martin joseph

on 2006-02-23 100811 -0800 clare at snyder.on.ca said on wed 22 feb 2006 155412 -0600 steve no@spam.thanks wrote all joking aside i do appreciate cars engineered so that you can keep replacing parts that wear out instead of having to pretend its a bic disposable and throw the thing away. american cars were like that until the 70s and trucks still are in most cases. japanese cars were *never* like that which is why ill never own one. actually they were. the old rear drive corollascoronas celicas hilux and land cruisers could be kept on the road virtually forever. assuming there was no salt on those roads. .