To: Bikers4Bush
I don't understand why this is such a big deal. Why not raise fuel efficiency?
6 posted on
12/23/2003 8:49:08 AM PST by
MarkeyD
(Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.)
To: MarkeyD
I don't understand why this is such a big deal. Why not raise fuel efficiency? Because it is at the expense of safety. People by and large buy SUVs for safety. In order to make them more "fuel efficient" you have to make them lighter. The government shouldn't be messing around with safety to satisfy someone's notion of what is "fuel efficient" or not.
To: MarkeyD
Here's why it's such a big deal: You give consumers the choice. The market will decide how fuel efficient it needs to be.
31 posted on
12/23/2003 9:06:26 AM PST by
brewcrew
To: MarkeyD
Raising fuel economy is one thing, but the light truck, especially what were once known as 4 wheel drives (before the SUV) has been castrated and candy-a$$ed to the point that anything under a 1 ton is pretty much useless.
You cannot continue to lighten frame and body on these vehicles and have anything durable. Smaller engines just mean less ability to pull.
At some point, safety is compromised, as well.
My '75 FJ40 Toyota Landcruiser is a 4 wheel drive, heavy, durable, factory roll bar (twice been tipped over in remote locations, pulled upright, fluids replaced, and driven away in less than 1 hour). Don't try that with a new one.
I have a '41 International pickup. The chassis elements are tremendously overengineered--International did so on purpose, recognizing that their market was to farmers and people who would work the truck for a living, expecting the owners to load as much on the truck as would fit, with regard only for the tires. When they lightened the frame in the '60's a lot of pickups got swaybacked from being loaded like the old ones.
69 posted on
12/23/2003 9:28:52 AM PST by
Smokin' Joe
(Society has no place in my gun cabinet.)
To: MarkeyD
Why not raise fuel efficiency?
Why not order the cost of medical research down?
In other words, as the USSR discovered, central planning
is a pale substitute for the free market. In the old days,
a conservative was someone who not only claimed to
believe that, but actually practiced it.
84 posted on
12/23/2003 9:37:12 AM PST by
gcruse
(http://gcruse.typepad.com/)
To: MarkeyD
Why not raise fuel efficiency?
Why not have the government dictate everything related to any and all manufacturing? But let's not call it National Socialism.
To: MarkeyD
I don't understand why this is such a big deal. Why not raise fuel efficiency? No kidding. Half a billion vehicles on the road any given day is eating our national wealth. Our cars are worth more than our houses. We could live like kings, but we live like lemmings.
166 posted on
12/23/2003 10:17:21 AM PST by
RightWhale
(Close your tag lines)
To: MarkeyD
I don't understand why this is such a big deal. Why not raise fuel efficiency? That should be for the MARKET to decide, not big government.
294 posted on
12/23/2003 11:58:58 AM PST by
Dan from Michigan
("if you wanna run cool, you got to run, on heavy heavy fuel" - Dire Straits)
To: MarkeyD
Why do it at gunpoint?
424 posted on
12/30/2003 6:29:25 AM PST by
Bikers4Bush
(Bush and Co. are quickly convincing me that the Constitution Party is our only hope.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson