Isn't it telling that Harry completely dodges the issue of this thread? (competition / manufacturer profits from different kinds of cars)
Harry Pollard wrote: > Chris is often wrong, but never realizes it because he takes no notice of > correction. I welcome corrections but not falsifications. > Our British car was a diesel, which somewhat surprised me. I thought they > were mostly a thing of the past. It gobbled fuel, which hurt at those > English prices. One problem with SUVs is they gobble so much fuel that they have to use diesel engines, just so they don't gobble EVEN MORE fuel. Because for the same power, a diesel engine gobbles less than a conventional engine. (This is also the reason why trucks (lorries in UK) run on diesel.) This leads to the problem that SUVs bring back "a thing of the past", which (health-wise) should have remained a thing of the past indeed. So, your British car gobbled fuel not because it was a diesel but although it was a diesel. It gobbled like hell because it was a SUV. > Light trucks have a high driver casualty rate. SUV's were statistically > bundled in with light trucks which gave a completely wrong impression. > > These results was touted by those who didn't like SUV's as proof that they > were dangerous. The roll-overs of _SUVs_ are well documented and physically logical (high center of gravity and idiotic wheels). > Chris mentioned "previously popular light/solar vehicles". I don't know > where he gets these fantasies. In the country where these vehicles exist on the market. ---- Btw, there was a photo in the newspaper today of Americans who were fleeing the (CO2-caused) hurricane Isabel. They were using a SUV... of the brand "DODGE"!! to dodge Isabel. What an irony of fate. Harry may not have to dodge Isabel, but to dodge the issue of this thread... Chris _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
