lawsuit??????

[binder56jd]

whats next?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... IJ8HB5.DTL

FE owners sue oil companies and feds for poor fuel mileage?

[hutch1973]

Unreal.

Five years ago I didn't vote or pay attention to politics at all. Decided with age, that I should do it to be a responsible American. Now that I'm "informed", I miss being negligent to everything. The more I learn, the more disgusted I become.

[rjewkes]

Yeah well all i can say about global warming is i have found that the same thing warming us is also cooling us.

And the worst damage comes from space travel.
I beleive momma nature has always had climate changes since before polution.

What realy messed up the Ozone was the idiots chopping away at therainforest.

[binder56jd]

[ToughOldFord]

I always hated the CAFE standards anyway. Where does the government get off telling a private company how to make their own product? And how does telling the manufactures to make it happen work? Do they really think that if they tell Ford to make a SUV that get 200MPG by next week and it will happen? For pete's sake, let the market and technology take care of itself. CAFE has caused thousands of deaths due to the manufacture of smaller and thereby unsafe cars.

[ToughOldFord]

Here's the article I was thinking of when I posted that:

Headline: Death by the Gallon
Byline: James R. Healey
Dateline: July 2, 1999

"In the 24 years since a landmark law to conserve fuel, big cars have
shrunk to less-safe sizes and small cars have poured onto roads. As a
result, 46,000 people have died in crashes they would have survived
in bigger, heavier cars, according to USA Today analysis of crash
data since 1975, when the Energy Policy and Conservation Act was
passed.

"The law and the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards it
imposed have improved fuel efficiency. The average of passenger
vehicles on U.S. roads is 20 miles per gallon vs. 14 mpg in 1975. But
the cost has been roughly 7,700 deaths for every mile per gallon
gained, the analysis shows."





"We have a small-car problem. If you want to solve the safety puzzle,
get rid of small cars," says Brian O'Neill, president of the
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. The institute, supported by
auto insurers, crash-tests more vehicles, more violently, than all
but the federal government. Little cars have big disadvantages in
crashes. They have less space to absorb crash forces. The less the
car absorbs, the more the people inside have to."





"Tellingly, most small-car crash deaths involve only small cars - 56%
in 1997, from the latest government data. They run into something
else, such as a tree, or into one another.

"In contrast, just 1% of small-car deaths - 136 people - occurred in
crashes with midsize or big sport-utility vehicles in '97, according
to statistics from the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, the agency that enforces safety and fuel-efficiency
rules. NHTSA does not routinely publish that information. It
performed special data calculations at USA Today's request.

"Champions of small cars like to point out that even when the SUV
threat is unmasked, other big trucks remain a nemesis. NHTSA data
shows, however, that while crashes with pickups, vans and commercial
trucks accounted for 28% of small-car deaths in '97, such crashes
also accounted for 36% of large-car deaths.

"Others argue that small cars attract young, inexperienced drivers.
There's some truth there, but not enough to explain small cars' out-
of-proportion deaths. About 36% of small-car drivers involved in
fatal crashes in 1997 were younger than 25; and 25% of the drivers of
all vehicles involved in fatal wrecks were that age, according to
NHTSA data."





"Questionable results. CAFE and its small cars have not reduced
overall U.S. gasoline and diesel fuel consumption as hoped. A strong
economy and growing population have increased consumption. The U.S.
imports more oil now than when the standards were imposed."





"Although federal anti-pollution regulations require that big cars
emit no more pollution per mile than small cars, environmental
activists seize on this: Small engines typical of small cars burn
less fuel, so they emit less carbon dioxide.

"Carbon dioxide, or CO2, is a naturally occurring gas that's not
considered a pollutant by the Environmental Protection Agency, which
regulates auto pollution. But those worried about global warming say
CO{-2} is a culprit and should be regulated via tougher CAFE rules."





"Car-buying expert Bragg - author of Car Buyer's and Leaser's
Negotiating Bible - says few customers even ask about small cars.
Small-car sales are half what they were in their mid-'80s heyday.
Just 7% of new-vehicle shoppers say they'll consider a small car,
according to a 1999 study by California-based auto industry
consultant AutoPacific.

"That would cut small-car sales in half. Those who have small cars
want out: 82% won't buy another. To Bragg, the reasons are
obvious: "People need a back seat that holds more than a six-pack and
a pizza. And, there's the safety issue."

[binder56jd]

good article- thanks

[FLATBEDFORD]

I'd feel safer in just about any of today's small cars than in the biggest car of 1975. Airbags, ABS, shoulder belts, crumple zones, better brakes, better tires, improved handling. We all drive a vehicle with 1970's safety equipment and handling. Do you all really feel safer in your old truck than in one of today's small cars?

[FLATBEDFORD]

Unreal.

Five years ago I didn't vote or pay attention to politics at all. Decided with age, that I should do it to be a responsible American. Now that I'm "informed", I miss being negligent to everything. The more I learn, the more disgusted I become.

Ignorance is bliss

[SmokeyBear]

You know what they call 1000 lawyers at the bottom of Lake Michigan???





















A good start.

[mk]

[ToughOldFord]

[quote="FLATBEDFORD"]I'd feel safer in just about any of today's small cars than in the biggest car of 1975. Airbags, ABS, shoulder belts, crumple zones, better brakes, better tires, improved handling. We all drive a vehicle with 1970's safety equipment and handling. Do you all really feel safer in your old truck than in one of today's small cars?[/quote]


Absolutely!! Read the article, today's cars are far more dangerous than the vehicles of yesterday. Talk to the highway patrol and first responders, they'll tell you that if the victims of a car crash had been in a larger car they might have survived the accident. All the new safety gadgets mean nothing when the vehicle they're in is crushed.

[spartman]

I was in a wreck once with a 77 monte carlo.

I was driving the monte and rearended a 83 ford pickup.

I had a smashed front grill, hood, inner fender, and one outer fender.

The pickup had the frame twisted, the bumper went under the truck the box came loose, the exhaust was off, and if I remember correctly it also tweaked his cab.

My front bumper was only dinged. And in about 6 months when I found all the parts from junkyards I was driving the monte once again.

Didn't even loose the AC "radiator".

Give me an old car anyday.

[binder56jd]

i had occasion to perform some aeronautical acrobatics- read high speed barrel roll- in a 79 IHC Terra(long wheel base scout II)- i walked away with a bruise on each shin and a minor concussion- i'm not up for a comparision test but i have seen later models in less violent wrecks that were crumpled beyond imagination- wasn't wearing seatbelt either oh yeah- it was still drivable

[capeclassics]

What's interesting to me is that no matter what topic is raised(anywhere),half the people take one side and half take the other side nowadays.I think the ratio used to be quite different............