> Hi all;
 > Soap Box switch set to 'ON'
 > I'm going to barge in here and state that something is being overlooked.
 > The thing that is being overlooked is the greed of the politicians
 > in Congress.
 >
 > Case to point:
 > In 1993, while working at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, I
found
 > myself in a 50 mile commute - one way... Being ever the engineer (is
that
 > how that word is spelled?), I decided to get a classic commute car. The
 > car of choice was a Honda Civic VX (the VX is important) hatchback.
 > Reasons for buying it were the essence of simplicity.
 >
 > It had, (the VX model,
 > that is) at that time, the highest EPA estimated millage of any car
on the
 > market. The figure I was interested in was highway mileage because,
at that
 > time, most of my commuting was done at 55-65 mph. This changed by the
time
 > I sold the car to absolutely awful Los Angeles style stop and go for
50 miles
 > each way. I digress. Back in those days, there was a lot of chit chat
about
 > the EPA estimates not being accurate, so after buying the car, I
dutifully
 > recorded every fill up with mileage.
 >
 > I sold the car ten years later with .25M miles
 > on it.I tallied up on my trustee Excel what I actually saw, for my
driving style,
 > tires, etc. Here's the results: The EPA estimated mpg was 51 highway.
The best
 > recorded mpg I got was 58. The worst mpg was 35. The mean was 45 mpg
over ten
 > years of mostly freeway (bumper to bumper driving). The 58 figure was
early
 > on when you could still travel at 65 mph. So, what's this got to do with
 > politicians?
 >
 > Just show me, today, a car that gets the average mpg that mine
 > got for the highway, which is not a hybrid, can carry 4 comfortably, 5
 > uncomfortably, has large cargo and easily exceeds 120mph and could drive
 > from San Jose, CA to San Diego, CA without a fill up. I don't think it's
 > out there. I don't think anyone would suggest that the failing car
companies
 > who desperately need high mileage cars to stay in business are not
building
 > them because they're in cahoots with the oil industry? Or am I all
wet here?
 >
 > It's simply a case of environmentalists doing everything they can do
to get
 > greenhouse gases down, ignoring the fact that much more gasoline is
being
 > used to supply these somewhat cleaner, low mileage vehicles. Does
anyone not
 > think that whatever technology breakthrough us techies come up with
that the
 > gov won't come down on the industry with yet cleaner requirements?
Not to
 > mention the need for an excessive increase in fuel tax to "balance"
it all
 > out and, of course, replenish the king's coffers? If you disagree, I
invite
 > you to look at yesterday's news about a two phase tax on cng fueled
vehicles,
 > the tax so high that their relatively cheap $0.88/gal cost will more
than
 > double. Ah well, all in a days work.
 > Soap Box switch set to 'OFF'
 > -- Keith

 This car you bought-did it have driver and passenger airbags? Airbags
for the side windows/doors? How do you think it would have fared
compared to present cars in a crash test? I'll bet it wouldnt do
well. Also, many customers today want leather seats, good sound
insulation, AC, etc. All this adds weight.

The added weight caused by increased safety requirements is largely (but
not solely) government-driven. The weight bloat caused by luxury
"cushy" items is entirely market driven.

I drive a '86 Toyota Camry that gets an honest 31 MPG in ral use. It's
my daily driver and don't intend to sell it, but I've got no doubt that
it is less safe and less comfortable than a new car would be.

Mark Waldron

Cars would lose 600 or 700 pounds of structural weight if they put the
airbags on the outside instead of on the inside.

Paul Lamar

Paul,
it might be worth mentioning that I never asked for crashability
standards. When I am trying to get really good mileage I RIDE my Yamaha
which will get 40 MPG at almost 100mph! The crashability is completely
cra... I mean terrible. NO airbags at all unless you consider me one and
then only for the passenger. We should be allowed to manage our risks in
a way we find acceptable. Mark do you want government mandated airbags
in your airplane? I really don't think new cars are much more
comfortable either, unless you buy the options intended for that
purpose. The safest 4 wheel vehicle I drive isn't a car, but rather a
6000 pound pickup truck with the seat belt on. I wouldn't want to be in
the Camry in a head to head impact. That is NOT a knock to the Camry
either they are just designed to do different things. The point here is
the unintended consequences of intervention in design. Does anyone on
the newsletter remember when Allstate advertised that they would give a
5% discount to any car with full 5 MPH safety bumpers? Anyone here
actually get that discount? If you want to screw things up put the
government in the equation. BTW if you work for the government I don't
care if I'm offending you. You are now an obstacle. Heaven help us if
the big G starts safety mandates for General aviation. Sorry for the rant.
Bill Jepson

The big G isn't creating these requirements all on its (our) own.  We
the consumer pay lawyers to sue car manufacturers when we (or our
family members) are in a crash.  Lots of people say, "That kind of
lawsuit is totally ridiculous!! Kill the attorneys!!"  Until their kid
is maimed/killed in a drunk driving accident.  Then many of those same
people are perfectly happy to sue anyone that can conceivably be tied
to the accident.  For the manufacturer, putting multiple airbags in a
car is good marketing up front, and then some measure of protection
against attorneys after the fact.  The manufacturer can say "We
obviously have done the best possible to protect your child, so this
unfortunate and tragic event isn't our fault.  We're sorry for your
loss.."  We need tort reform as much as anything else..


Matt-