So what happens when 100LL is gone anyway?

Roger wrote:

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 09:19:01 +0200, Thomas Borchert
wrote:


Roger,


What would make you think that? Other than the "Hummers" and the
really expensive *big* SUVs people are looking at mileage.


Yes, but the American look at mileage is worlds apart from a European
look at mileage.


True, but when you've been looking at 10, then 15, then 20 MPG over
the last 40 years, 30 MPG looks like something with super efficiency.
BTW my wife's mini, mini van which has almost 200,000 miles on it
still gets almost 40 MPG

What kind of minivan is this? A diesel?

Matt

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 22:27:06 GMT, Matt Whiting
wrote:

Roger wrote:

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 09:19:01 +0200, Thomas Borchert
wrote:


Roger,


What would make you think that? Other than the "Hummers" and the
really expensive *big* SUVs people are looking at mileage.


Yes, but the American look at mileage is worlds apart from a European
look at mileage.


True, but when you've been looking at 10, then 15, then 20 MPG over
the last 40 years, 30 MPG looks like something with super efficiency.
BTW my wife's mini, mini van which has almost 200,000 miles on it
still gets almost 40 MPG

What kind of minivan is this? A diesel?
It's not a minivan, but rather what they used to call a mini, mini
van.

It's a Chrysler Summit with a 1.7 liter gas engine and stick shift.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Matt

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 19:17:12 GMT, George Patterson
wrote:

Roger wrote:

However it's not as simple as just choosing to go to smaller more
efficient cars. In many cases it's just not practical, safe, or
economical. In many cases, if not most, the little European car would
not be safe or practical here.

Maybe not, but it *is* as simple as using smaller, more fuel efficient engines.
The full-size Ford pickup of the 60s came with a 2.3 litre engine of about 60
hp. Today, the smallest engine available is 4.2 litre of 202 hp. That is not
needed for either practicality, safety, or economy.

No argument there. My point is over all the little cars of Europe
are, in most cases, not praticle here.

Now to get rid of the pickup truck as the Red Neck symbol of
success:-))

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

Hey Now!
Let's leave my pick up out of this! A nice big 84 Ford F-150 4x4 w/
built up 351 Windsor, performance trannie, a nice Warn winch and brush guard
with deer spotter lights mounted of course. To round it all off is my front
plate that says " American By Birth, Southern By The Grace Of God". Passes
anything but the gas station!
But the wife's car which is what we always take on family things is a
Geo Metro , it gets somewhere around 40mpg. As for the deisels, I just hate
the sound of them! They sound like a washing machine with a pipe wrench in
it!
I'm just a good old southern boy, but a real redneck has at least two
cars on blocks in the front yard with a broke down frig on the porch, and a
new TV sitting on top of the broken console TV !
As Jeff Foxworthy says" You might be a redneck...if your momma tells the
Georgia Highway Patrolman to kiss her ass without even taking the Marlboro
out of her mouth."

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"Roger" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 19:17:12 GMT, George Patterson
wrote:

Roger wrote:

However it's not as simple as just choosing to go to smaller more
efficient cars. In many cases it's just not practical, safe, or
economical. In many cases, if not most, the little European car would
not be safe or practical here.

Maybe not, but it *is* as simple as using smaller, more fuel efficient
engines.
The full-size Ford pickup of the 60s came with a 2.3 litre engine of about
60
hp. Today, the smallest engine available is 4.2 litre of 202 hp. That is
not
needed for either practicality, safety, or economy.

No argument there. My point is over all the little cars of Europe
are, in most cases, not praticle here.

Now to get rid of the pickup truck as the Red Neck symbol of
success:-))

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"Mike Rapoport" wrote:

He has a point. Cheap fuel has encouraged consumers to do all the
"wrong"
things for a country facing rapidly rising energy costs. Living far from
work, driving large vehicles and living in large houses are all
encouraged
by cheap fuel. It makes more sense to tax consumption than production.

It's way more complicated than energy being "too cheap". For example,
in some cases people live far from work because housing is way too
expensive around work. Increase the energy costs by raising taxes and
you'll make the local housing even more unaffordable.

[snip]
Just goes to show that fuel is too cheap in the US...

Somewhat presumptuous of others to tell the US that
fuel economy is more important than tax revenues and
safety.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule


Obviously there is no perfect solution but it is clear (I think) that cheap
fuel encourages more fuel use.

Mike
MU-2

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...
He has a point. Cheap fuel has encouraged consumers to do all the
"wrong"
things for a country facing rapidly rising energy costs. Living far from
work, driving large vehicles and living in large houses are all
encouraged
by cheap fuel. It makes more sense to tax consumption than production.

Nice elitist attitude.

Something along those lines is what every tyrant throws out.



Pretty clear factual statement supported by high school economics or by
looking around the world and observing energy use.

Mike
MU-2

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Matt Barrow wrote:

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...

He has a point. Cheap fuel has encouraged consumers to do all the
"wrong"
things for a country facing rapidly rising energy costs. Living far from
work, driving large vehicles and living in large houses are all
encouraged
by cheap fuel. It makes more sense to tax consumption than production.


Nice elitist attitude.

Elitist? It seemed like a pretty straightforward summary of the situation
to me. The economics of cheap energy DOES encourage the above.

The only part I disagree with is the tax statement. I don't see any
meaningful difference between taxing consumption vs. production. The end
consumer pays the tax anyway so it doesn't really matter where in the
chain you apply the tax.


Matt

The only difference is that consumers make choices and taxing energy
consumption would reduce that consumption and reduce all of the by products
like dependence of foreign oil, pollution

Mike
MU-2

Roger wrote:

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 22:27:06 GMT, Matt Whiting
wrote:


Roger wrote:


On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 09:19:01 +0200, Thomas Borchert
wrote:



Roger,



What would make you think that? Other than the "Hummers" and the
really expensive *big* SUVs people are looking at mileage.


Yes, but the American look at mileage is worlds apart from a European
look at mileage.


True, but when you've been looking at 10, then 15, then 20 MPG over
the last 40 years, 30 MPG looks like something with super efficiency.
BTW my wife's mini, mini van which has almost 200,000 miles on it
still gets almost 40 MPG

What kind of minivan is this? A diesel?

It's not a minivan, but rather what they used to call a mini, mini
van.

It's a Chrysler Summit with a 1.7 liter gas engine and stick shift.

Is that was was originally an Eagle Summit? Made by Mitsubishi as I
recall. I'd call that a station wagon. :-)

Matt

Roger wrote:

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 19:17:12 GMT, George Patterson
wrote:


Roger wrote:

However it's not as simple as just choosing to go to smaller more
efficient cars. In many cases it's just not practical, safe, or
economical. In many cases, if not most, the little European car would
not be safe or practical here.

Maybe not, but it *is* as simple as using smaller, more fuel efficient engines.
The full-size Ford pickup of the 60s came with a 2.3 litre engine of about 60
hp. Today, the smallest engine available is 4.2 litre of 202 hp. That is not
needed for either practicality, safety, or economy.


No argument there. My point is over all the little cars of Europe
are, in most cases, not praticle here.

Now to get rid of the pickup truck as the Red Neck symbol of
success:-))

Actually, a pickup or SUV is the yuppie symbol of status. Real rednecks
actually USE their trucks.


Matt

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 19:17:24 GMT, Jose
wrote:

(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)

You used to have a question mark after this in your sig. You've
confirmed now that yours is it?

Near as I can tell. CD-1 is not in the FAA database, and "they" tell
me it was the mating of a 35 and 33 which was then disassembled and
used to set up the assembly line where it became CD-2, BUT I've never
been able to get them to put that in writing.

The locals just keep saying I'm the world's oldest Debonair pilot.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Jose