600 mile range Federal law needed

Discussion in 'General Motoring' started by Nomen Nescio, Sep 4, 2005.

  1. Nomen Nescio

    Bill Putney Guest

    So Bush should stop and respond to every cackpot who comes up with
    half-baked stories. Like Louis Farrakhan saying regarding New Orleans:
    " 'I heard from a very reliable source who saw a 25 foot deep crater
    under the levee breach. It may have been blown up to destroy the black
    part of town and keep the white part dry,' Farrakhan said."
    (That's an example of an honest to God direct quote:

    Sorry - but I think it would be foolish to start responding to such
    crap. A president could be more effective ignoring it and it would be
    irresponsible to be distracted like that.

    Bill Putney
    (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
    address with the letter 'x')
    Bill Putney, Sep 15, 2005
  2. Nomen Nescio

    Bill Putney Guest

    You have just invoked the ol' slippery slope argument. Liberals never
    allow slippery slope arguments when used against them, but they sure
    whip them out when it suits their purposes.

    Seriously - from a strict legal/Constitutional standpoint, "one step
    towards" is the same as the commonly used expression "a near miss" (or a
    near hit) - (an inch is as good as a mile). Either it fits the
    prohibited activity or it doesn't, not "It appears to some as being
    similar to...". It doesn't say "nothing can be done that looks like it
    may be a step towards..." It says "may not pass a law that...". *Bush*
    is not *Congress*. *Speaking* is not *passing a law that*. Therefore
    "Bush saying..." is not the same as "Congress passing a law that...".

    See above re: Slippery slope arguments.
    I'm just the messenger. A state establishing a religion is not
    prohibited by the Constitution. Again, I didn't say I think they should
    or that it would be a good thing to do, but if we're talking about "What
    does the Constitution say about a state establishing a religion?", then
    the answer is "Nothing". Again - I'm just stating the facts. I didn't
    say I was for or agin'. The subject is the Constitution.
    Whether I have a problem with it has nothing to do with the question of
    is it allowed by the Constitution, does it. This isn't a discussion of
    what is and is not Ok by me. This is a discussion of what is

    BTW (and you may find this intersting and/or humorous) - I used to work
    with a guy that claims that the county he lives in never signed the
    loyalty oath that was required of all counties in the Confederacy after
    the Civil War (or what some refer to as "The Recent Unpleasantness"),
    and that it is the *only* county in the entire south not to have done
    so. So technically, he claims, his county is still seceded from the Union.
    We live under the Constitution. If we believe in the Constitition, then
    we should all let the chips fall where they may and strictly enforce it
    even on specifics that we disagree with. And, BTW - it does have the
    provisions within itself to be altered/amended. It was intentionally
    and wisely made difficult to amend, but even a strict Constitutionalist
    has to acknowledge that it can be amended.

    Bill Putney
    (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
    address with the letter 'x')
    Bill Putney, Sep 15, 2005
  3. Obliquely relevant: did you know that the UK has an established religion,
    the Church of Engand?

    Doesn't seem to have done us much harm. In fact, we are the least religious
    country in Europe.


    For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling

    Dori A Schmetterling, Sep 16, 2005
  4. Nomen Nescio

    R Steenerson Guest

    Interesting point. I think that the goal of having a 600 mile range on
    a car would not all be in the capacity of the gas tank. The mpg needs to be
    about 25 mpg and then a 24 or 25 gallon would do it.
    I think I remember the weight of a gallon of water is 8.3 pounds and
    the weight of one gallon of gas is 6.5 or 6.7 pounds. So, 6.7 x 25 would be
    less than 175 pounds. That is the weight of one average man or less. Hope
    that does not make a difference to a motor vehicle. If it does, I am not
    sure that I would want a vehicle like that. (30 galllons at 6.7 would be
    about 200 pounds.)
    R Steenerson, Sep 17, 2005
  5. It is interesting. You have a number of 'non-friends' in this (Chrysler) NG
    and yet you manage to start very long threads...


    For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
    Dori A Schmetterling, Sep 17, 2005
  6. Nomen Nescio

    Bill Putney Guest

    You're right - I assumed 200 miles on a typical intermediate car gas
    tank of 11 or 12 gallons, so to get 600 mile range, I tripled the gas
    tank size. That works out to about 18 mpg - today's car doesn't get
    much better than that in city driving - but that also was part of your

    Bill Putney
    (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
    address with the letter 'x')
    Bill Putney, Sep 17, 2005
  7. And how much more fuel will the nation consume while hauling the extra (He said
    triple the size)= 24 gallons = 91 liters = 90 Kg = about 200 lb..

    Sorry I should have read the previous post! (same point, different numbers)
    Albert Finley, Sep 17, 2005
  8. Nomen Nescio

    Matt Whiting Guest

    Of course 175 pounds of weight makes a difference to a vehicle. Every
    extra pound takes energy to accelerate, decelerate and haul up hills.

    Matt Whiting, Sep 18, 2005
  9. Nomen Nescio

    R Steenerson Guest

    Well, I am writing from Minnesota. We don't have many hills here.
    But, the 175 lbs is total weight for a 25 gallon gas tank, the incremental
    difference from say 12 gallons is not 175, but would be about 90 pounds.
    For better, gas mileage people are encouraged to not carry around a lot
    of stuff in their trunks and their is value in that but, if 90 pounds or 200
    pounds affects mileage more than .3 or .5 miles per gallon I would be
    disappointed with my car. My basic point, is that I like the idea or having
    a range of 600 miles for a vehicle.
    Of course not all vehicles are equal either but, for cars it would be
    nice if they could get 25 mpg or so. However, it might be impossible to
    have a V-8 SUV or pickup truck with a lot of towing capacity be able to get
    25 or even 20 mpg. Maybe the max there would be 16 mpg in which case the
    gas tank might need to be 40 gallons. For a 12,000 lb truck with 6 or 7 mpg
    maybe a 100 gallon tank would be unreasonable and maybe some classes of
    vehicles would be excluded but, I still like being able to go along way
    without stopping for gas a lot.
    R Steenerson, Sep 19, 2005
  10. Nomen Nescio

    351CJ Guest

    Like I already posted to this thread

    My 2005 Ford F-450 4x4 Crew Cab (10,000 pounds full of fuel and unloaded)
    6.0L Power Stroke Diesel carries 59 gallons of diesel (Just shy of 420
    pounds of diesel fuel). (Diesel weighs about 7.1 pounds per US gallon)
    (Gasoline weighs about 6.2 pounds per US gallon) This truck Gets 14.5 miles
    per gallon. That equals 855 miles per fill up. :) At over $3.00 per
    gallon, that's over $185 to fill up. :-(
    351CJ, Sep 19, 2005
  11. Why not add hurricane testing to federl crash standards too? Then you don;'t
    have to worry about the vehicles range. It's makes just as much sense as your
    Alex Rodriguez, Sep 19, 2005
  12. Nomen Nescio

    C-BODY Guest

    All politics aside . . . if a new car has (and will get) 30mph EPA
    highway fuel ecomony and has a (typically) 16 gallon fuel tank (of which
    only about 14 can reasonably be used without harming the electric fuel
    pump in the tank), then that's a total theoretical 480 mile highway
    cruising range. Up from the former 20 gallons and 20 EPA Highway (i.e.,
    400 miles) situation in the later 1970s.

    If a new Dodge pickup is rated at 21mpg EPA Highway with a 26 gallon
    fuel tank (possibly), might the way to get to the 600 mile range be to
    add a few more gallons' capacity to the fuel tank?

    By observation, once you spend 400 miles behind the wheel of anything,
    you NEED to get out and walk around a little. A fuel stop is a good way
    to do that! Might be one reason that smaller and more fuel efficient
    cars have smaller fuel tanks? A build-in "safety" situation?

    A high level Ford Motor Company operative was quoted as commenting (re:
    federal CAFE fuel ecomony standards) that it was NOT the way to get
    people into more fuel efficient vehicles, when compared to normal market
    issues and fuel costs. When fuel costs go up, sales of smaller vehicles
    trend upward too, typically.

    Yet CAFE mandates those things for us rather than US making that choice
    ourselves. Protecting us from ourselves? Possibly. Maybe not.
    Depends upon which economist and prognosticator you desire to listen
    to--of which there are MANY these days that ALL have the answer.

    Some might claim it was the drive to higher CAFE and resultantly smaller
    cars that fueled the trend toward truck-based vehicles in the first
    place. Families have NOT shrunk and they now have more and larger
    things to carry around with them (high tech and larger baby strollers,
    for example). The small cars of the 1980s would not do those things and
    still get 30mpg, unless it was a Chevette diesel at 50mpg with no
    factory a/c available. Much less haul 5 people in relative comfort AND

    One reason the Chevy Suburban became "The National Car of Texas" was not
    that a big state needs big vehicles for the citizenry to drive around
    in, but because of "safety" issues for the occupants. "Texas Monthly"
    magazine did an article on that back in the later 1980s. It also
    mentioned how a dual-a/c Suburban just didn't cut it when compared to
    the import minivans of the era too, in use/utility/people and family
    haul and the "safety in a crash" issue in the pre-air bag days. And the
    1/2 ton models would generally get mid to high teens fuel economy on
    the highway and in normal use . . . plus haul the bass boat on weekends,
    or the travel trailer. This was in the 1985 era time frame.

    With the optional 40 gallon fuel tank and 16mpg highway, over 600 miles

    In modern times, it's not specifically how big the tank is, it's how
    much it costs to fill it and how THAT fits into the budget. For
    example, the Avalanche owners that moved into Pontiac G6 or Chevy Malibu
    vehicles are now glad they did it.

    Granted, many people really don't need a truck-based vehicle to just
    drive around in--but they buy them for that. Kind of like the executive
    that drives a 4 door 4wd diesel pickup to work. Heck of a price of
    admission for the diesel engine option over a gas motor, plus the
    significantly higher cost of oil changes, but the engine costs will be
    usually returned at trade-in time, so the real costs are the 10-17 quart
    oil changes and the more expensive oil filter that are not compensated
    for with the up to 20mpg+ (unloaded average fuel economy. If you've got
    the price of admission for a $50K diesel pickup rig and can not flinch
    at the oil change costs (some people even want Mobil 1 synthetic oil in
    them!!!), then our generally strong economy can help them support that
    habit--whether we like it or not.

    Almost everything the government has tried to legislate us into, the
    enterprising people that we are has generally found a way around it (the
    legal stuff, that is!). If people want rwd V-8 vehicles and truck
    chassis vehicles can and do have that, they'll buy them over a fwd car
    they don't like. No musclecars as such, but we've got factory 150mph+
    SRT-10 Ram 1500s to compensate. But then we've now got 14.0 second 1/4
    mile times from a 4000lb production sedan that will get about 25mpg+ on
    the highway too.

    We've been into truck chassis vehicles for too long, but that's what the
    public has been buying due to need or just desires. Now it's time for
    some neat cars again (i.e., new Mustang) AND for Chrysler to stop
    side-stepping things and get us a new CHARGER COUPE and a companion
    CHALLENGER/CUDA car that's WORTHY of the name!!!!! Just like the prior
    B-car chassis was the basis for the E-body chassis/platform!!! They
    need to get there BEFORE GM does!!! WE know they can do it, if they
    just would!!!!!

    Ford seems to hit all of the right buttons in the "retro" Mustang and
    seems to have a monopoly in doing that sort of thing. And Mr. Creed
    desires to push his agenda of having just a 4-door Charger, when it's
    highly obvious that there needs to be a CHARGER COUPE that is WORTHY of
    the name in style and performance and IMAGE.

    (remaining soap box time relinquished . . .)


    C-BODY, Sep 25, 2005
Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.