Fuel efficient vehicles

Slightly OT, and I totally agree with fuel efficiency and
less dependence on oil, but ...
A slight problem also needs to be addressed - less gas tax
revenue. In Minnesota and probably many other states, gas tax
revenue is used to build and maintain roads, so the state will
have to find another equitable method of raising needed funds.
Toll roads? We drive through Illinois a couple of times a year
and easily pay $5 in tolls each time for the privilege of
driving on crappy roads. Not sure where their toll money goes?

Back to Mustangs: I just took a quick drive to our local Quick
Trip convenience store in my 84 Capri RS 5.0 - love that car!

Dick

On 2009-08-17, Dick R. > wrote:
> Slightly OT, and I totally agree with fuel efficiency and
> less dependence on oil, but ...
> A slight problem also needs to be addressed - less gas tax
> revenue.

It's really easy. If fleet average fuel economy does actually rise (it
hasn't) just raise the tax per unit volume of fuel.

The pay-per-mile track-and-toll systems are just government using fuel
economy as an excuse to increase their power and monitoring over our
lives.

Dick R. wrote:
> Slightly OT, and I totally agree with fuel efficiency and
> less dependence on oil, but ...
> A slight problem also needs to be addressed - less gas tax
> revenue. In Minnesota and probably many other states, gas tax
> revenue is used to build and maintain roads, so the state will
> have to find another equitable method of raising needed funds.
> Toll roads? We drive through Illinois a couple of times a year
> and easily pay $5 in tolls each time for the privilege of
> driving on crappy roads. Not sure where their toll money goes?
>
> Back to Mustangs: I just took a quick drive to our local Quick
> Trip convenience store in my 84 Capri RS 5.0 - love that car!
>
> Dick
Yup, here in Oregon where people have flowery rainbow dreams of Jetson's
mobiles flying to the tofu store, there was talk about tracking cars and
charging by the mile.

Eventually monies will have to be collected, somehow, but it ain't here yet.

Drive on, Mercury Man!

GILL wrote:

<big snip>
> Drive on, Mercury Man!

The 84 Capri looks almost as good as it did when I drove it
off the showroom floor 25 years ago. It's getting older but
I'm aging, as in "look at that old fart driving that cool car".

Dick

Dick R. wrote:
> GILL wrote:
>
> <big snip>
>> Drive on, Mercury Man!
>
> The 84 Capri looks almost as good as it did when I drove it
> off the showroom floor 25 years ago. It's getting older but
> I'm aging, as in "look at that old fart driving that cool car".
>
> Dick

Those are one of those "I never heard of those!" kind of cars (At least
to the younger crowd). Kind of neat to see such cars at the local meets.

At a show we had here back in July, a guy had an AMX Hornet, they made them!

I had to look it up. http://tinyurl.com/r2qf3q

GILL wrote:
> Dick R. wrote:
>
>> GILL wrote:
>>
>>> Drive on, Mercury Man!
>>
>> The 84 Capri looks almost as good as it did when I drove it
>> off the showroom floor 25 years ago. It's getting older but
>> I'm aging, as in "look at that old fart driving that cool car".
>> Dick
>
> Those are one of those "I never heard of those!" kind of cars (At least
> to the younger crowd). Kind of neat to see such cars at the local meets.
>
I suppose there are younger people who wonder what 5.0 means when they
see a Mustang or Capri. For us older folks, we remember the Z28 Camaros
from the late 60s that had the 302 engine (302 cu in = 4.94889 L).
Close enough to 5.0 for us with 5.0s!
Whatever,
Dick

GILL wrote:
> Dick R. wrote:
>> GILL wrote:
>>
>> <big snip>
>>> Drive on, Mercury Man!
>>
>> The 84 Capri looks almost as good as it did when I drove it
>> off the showroom floor 25 years ago. It's getting older but
>> I'm aging, as in "look at that old fart driving that cool car".
>>
>> Dick
>
> Those are one of those "I never heard of those!" kind of cars (At
> least to the younger crowd). Kind of neat to see such cars at the
> local
> meets.
> At a show we had here back in July, a guy had an AMX Hornet, they
> made them!
> I had to look it up. http://tinyurl.com/r2qf3q

When I was shopping for a family/slalom/time-trial car in 1971, I
looked seriously at the Hornet Sportabout (wagon). It was pretty quick
in acceleration, had plenty of room, but two too many doors, didn't
turn very well, looked a little ugly in an era of uglies, and you
couldn't get it without a load of extras that weighed more than they
were worth.

I settled on a Chevy Vega Kammback, still one of the best shapes
produced; got it with rear seat shoulder belts as pretty much the only
option. Eventually did very well in the slaloms, held the Solo One lap
record for B Sedan at Willow Springs, and had no engine problems until
it started smoking a bit at 60,000 miles. All that on an Opel
transmission and a single one-barrel carburetor.

The next Vega was a GT Coupe, and got the same kind of treatment. High
point of my racing career was catching the Levis Team HiBall Gremlins
in Turn Nine at Riverside (California) in practice at the April, 1975
IMSA little sedan race. They were 30 miles an hour faster on the long
straight, but the Vega outhandled them everywhere, and would have
passed them at S/F if it had more horspower.

That didn't stop the Gremlins and Concordes from winning plenty of
IMSA races, though. Part of the kind of preparation that went into the
factory-supported cars was typified by the rain gutters: they were
ground off and smoothed over. Worth a mph or two, I guess.

--
Frank ess

Frank ess wrote:
>
> When I was shopping for a family/slalom/time-trial car in 1971, I looked
> seriously at the Hornet Sportabout (wagon). It was pretty quick in
> acceleration, had plenty of room, but two too many doors, didn't turn
> very well, looked a little ugly in an era of uglies, and you couldn't
> get it without a load of extras that weighed more than they were worth.
>
> I settled on a Chevy Vega Kammback, still one of the best shapes
> produced; got it with rear seat shoulder belts as pretty much the only
> option. Eventually did very well in the slaloms, held the Solo One lap
> record for B Sedan at Willow Springs, and had no engine problems until
> it started smoking a bit at 60,000 miles. All that on an Opel
> transmission and a single one-barrel carburetor.
>
> The next Vega was a GT Coupe, and got the same kind of treatment. High
> point of my racing career was catching the Levis Team HiBall Gremlins in
> Turn Nine at Riverside (California) in practice at the April, 1975 IMSA
> little sedan race. They were 30 miles an hour faster on the long
> straight, but the Vega outhandled them everywhere, and would have passed
> them at S/F if it had more horspower.
>
> That didn't stop the Gremlins and Concordes from winning plenty of IMSA
> races, though. Part of the kind of preparation that went into the
> factory-supported cars was typified by the rain gutters: they were
> ground off and smoothed over. Worth a mph or two, I guess.
>

There is a guy where I worked who runs a 10 sec. Vega GT (Big block and
tube frame)
Kind of interesting they had that Cosworth Vega back then too.

"Dick R." > wrote in message
...
> Slightly OT, and I totally agree with fuel efficiency and
> less dependence on oil, but ...
> A slight problem also needs to be addressed - less gas tax
> revenue. In Minnesota and probably many other states, gas tax
> revenue is used to build and maintain roads, so the state will
> have to find another equitable method of raising needed funds.
> Toll roads? We drive through Illinois a couple of times a year
> and easily pay $5 in tolls each time for the privilege of
> driving on crappy roads. Not sure where their toll money goes?
>
> Back to Mustangs: I just took a quick drive to our local Quick
> Trip convenience store in my 84 Capri RS 5.0 - love that car!
>
> Dick

Haven't you noticed? As car became more fuel efficient gas prices
rose accordingly. Now when you buy that fuel efficient green car
that delivers 50 mpg you'll be paying $10 per gallon instead of $2.50.

"Fred Brown" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dick R." > wrote in message
> ...
>> Slightly OT, and I totally agree with fuel efficiency and
>> less dependence on oil, but ...
>> A slight problem also needs to be addressed - less gas tax
>> revenue. In Minnesota and probably many other states, gas tax
>> revenue is used to build and maintain roads, so the state will
>> have to find another equitable method of raising needed funds.
>> Toll roads? We drive through Illinois a couple of times a year
>> and easily pay $5 in tolls each time for the privilege of
>> driving on crappy roads. Not sure where their toll money goes?
>>
>> Back to Mustangs: I just took a quick drive to our local Quick
>> Trip convenience store in my 84 Capri RS 5.0 - love that car!
>>
>> Dick
>
> Haven't you noticed? As car became more fuel efficient gas prices
> rose accordingly. Now when you buy that fuel efficient green car
> that delivers 50 mpg you'll be paying $10 per gallon instead of $2.50.
>

Then we should all by Volts at 230mpg, and pay $27.00 per gallon. At least,
that's what it costs me to drive MY car 230 miles.

dwight