Plan on driving a new car on a 3000mile highway trip. Bad idea?
05-12-2008 | 07:11 AM
#16
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Plan on driving a new car on a 3000mile highway trip. Bad idea?
In article <slrng2f8na.47l.joe@barada.griffincs.local>,
Joe <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo.com> wrote:
> > Classified by whom?
> >
> > The only classification that matters is the guy who bought it.
> >
>
> No, the only classification that matters is the one the government
> makes, since they determine the safety ratings and the licensing and
> registration fees.
Ummmmmm.....no, the only classification that matters is the guy who buys
it. He calls it a car. It's a car.
You're apparently one of those types who has to go around talking about
everything down to the last detail. "He took his 4 door 4wd SUV to the
store, he didn't walk."
Joe <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo.com> wrote:
> > Classified by whom?
> >
> > The only classification that matters is the guy who bought it.
> >
>
> No, the only classification that matters is the one the government
> makes, since they determine the safety ratings and the licensing and
> registration fees.
Ummmmmm.....no, the only classification that matters is the guy who buys
it. He calls it a car. It's a car.
You're apparently one of those types who has to go around talking about
everything down to the last detail. "He took his 4 door 4wd SUV to the
store, he didn't walk."
05-12-2008 | 07:32 AM
#17
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Plan on driving a new car on a 3000mile highway trip. Bad idea?
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in news:elmop-
04F114.07112412052008@nntp9.usenetserver.com:
> In article <slrng2f8na.47l.joe@barada.griffincs.local>,
> Joe <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo.com> wrote:
>
>> > Classified by whom?
>> >
>> > The only classification that matters is the guy who bought it.
>> >
>>
>> No, the only classification that matters is the one the government
>> makes, since they determine the safety ratings and the licensing and
>> registration fees.
I suspect the insurance companies also classify it as a truck.And they DO
matter.
>
> Ummmmmm.....no, the only classification that matters is the guy who buys
> it. He calls it a car. It's a car.
you're repeating that doens't make it true.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
04F114.07112412052008@nntp9.usenetserver.com:
> In article <slrng2f8na.47l.joe@barada.griffincs.local>,
> Joe <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo.com> wrote:
>
>> > Classified by whom?
>> >
>> > The only classification that matters is the guy who bought it.
>> >
>>
>> No, the only classification that matters is the one the government
>> makes, since they determine the safety ratings and the licensing and
>> registration fees.
I suspect the insurance companies also classify it as a truck.And they DO
matter.
>
> Ummmmmm.....no, the only classification that matters is the guy who buys
> it. He calls it a car. It's a car.
you're repeating that doens't make it true.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
05-14-2008 | 11:01 AM
#19
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Plan on driving a new car on a 3000mile highway trip. Bad idea?
"Nick Cassimatis" <nickpc0spam@nc.rr.com> wrote in
news:482afc4f$0$5735$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:
> The US Government classifies a PT Cruiser a "Truck," so using them as a
> reference is questionable.
>
I mentioned that in my original post. It's a "light truck",BTW.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
news:482afc4f$0$5735$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:
> The US Government classifies a PT Cruiser a "Truck," so using them as a
> reference is questionable.
>
I mentioned that in my original post. It's a "light truck",BTW.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
05-15-2008 | 10:38 PM
#20
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Plan on driving a new car on a 3000mile highway trip. Bad idea?
On 2008-05-12, Elmo P. Shagnasty <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
> In article <slrng2f8na.47l.joe@barada.griffincs.local>,
> Joe <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo.com> wrote:
>
>> > Classified by whom?
>> >
>> > The only classification that matters is the guy who bought it.
>> >
>>
>> No, the only classification that matters is the one the government
>> makes, since they determine the safety ratings and the licensing and
>> registration fees.
>
> Ummmmmm.....no, the only classification that matters is the guy who buys
> it. He calls it a car. It's a car.
>
> You're apparently one of those types who has to go around talking about
> everything down to the last detail. "He took his 4 door 4wd SUV to the
> store, he didn't walk."
>
No. If he said he walked, I'd probably say he drove, but I wouldn't
care what he drove. If he said he bought a car, and I looked at it
and saw a truck, I'd say he bought a truck.
There are different laws governing all kinds of things that are
different between cars and trucks. There are different insurance
rates and registration fees. A truck is not a car any more than a car
is a moped.
--
Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
joe at hits - buffalo dot com
"Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
time..." - Danny, American History X
> In article <slrng2f8na.47l.joe@barada.griffincs.local>,
> Joe <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo.com> wrote:
>
>> > Classified by whom?
>> >
>> > The only classification that matters is the guy who bought it.
>> >
>>
>> No, the only classification that matters is the one the government
>> makes, since they determine the safety ratings and the licensing and
>> registration fees.
>
> Ummmmmm.....no, the only classification that matters is the guy who buys
> it. He calls it a car. It's a car.
>
> You're apparently one of those types who has to go around talking about
> everything down to the last detail. "He took his 4 door 4wd SUV to the
> store, he didn't walk."
>
No. If he said he walked, I'd probably say he drove, but I wouldn't
care what he drove. If he said he bought a car, and I looked at it
and saw a truck, I'd say he bought a truck.
There are different laws governing all kinds of things that are
different between cars and trucks. There are different insurance
rates and registration fees. A truck is not a car any more than a car
is a moped.
--
Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
joe at hits - buffalo dot com
"Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
time..." - Danny, American History X
05-15-2008 | 10:39 PM
#21
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Plan on driving a new car on a 3000mile highway trip. Bad idea?
On 2008-05-14, Nick Cassimatis <nickpc0spam@nc.rr.com> wrote:
> The US Government classifies a PT Cruiser a "Truck," so using them as a
> reference is questionable.
>
They do not.
--
Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
joe at hits - buffalo dot com
"Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
time..." - Danny, American History X
> The US Government classifies a PT Cruiser a "Truck," so using them as a
> reference is questionable.
>
They do not.
--
Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
joe at hits - buffalo dot com
"Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
time..." - Danny, American History X
05-15-2008 | 11:33 PM
#22
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Plan on driving a new car on a 3000mile highway trip. Bad idea?
Joe <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo.com> wrote in
news:slrng2pt4k.vda.joe@barada.griffincs.local:
> On 2008-05-14, Nick Cassimatis <nickpc0spam@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>> The US Government classifies a PT Cruiser a "Truck," so using them as a
>> reference is questionable.
>>
>
> They do not.
>
>
When Chrysler brought out the PT Cruiser,they designed it as a "light
truck" so it would not have to meet stricter passenger car standards for
fuel economy.(CAFE)
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_PT_Cruiser;
It is a front-wheel drive 5-passenger vehicle, classified as a truck by the
NHTSA for CAFE fuel economy calculations but as a car by most other
metrics. Indeed, Chrysler specifically designed the PT Cruiser to fit the
NHTSA criteria for a light truck in order to bring the average fuel
efficiency of the company's light truck fleet into compliance with CAFE
standards.[2]
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
news:slrng2pt4k.vda.joe@barada.griffincs.local:
> On 2008-05-14, Nick Cassimatis <nickpc0spam@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>> The US Government classifies a PT Cruiser a "Truck," so using them as a
>> reference is questionable.
>>
>
> They do not.
>
>
When Chrysler brought out the PT Cruiser,they designed it as a "light
truck" so it would not have to meet stricter passenger car standards for
fuel economy.(CAFE)
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_PT_Cruiser;
It is a front-wheel drive 5-passenger vehicle, classified as a truck by the
NHTSA for CAFE fuel economy calculations but as a car by most other
metrics. Indeed, Chrysler specifically designed the PT Cruiser to fit the
NHTSA criteria for a light truck in order to bring the average fuel
efficiency of the company's light truck fleet into compliance with CAFE
standards.[2]
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
05-16-2008 | 01:35 AM
#23
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Plan on driving a new car on a 3000mile highway trip. Bad idea?
On 2008-05-16, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:
> Joe <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo.com> wrote in
> news:slrng2pt4k.vda.joe@barada.griffincs.local:
>
>> On 2008-05-14, Nick Cassimatis <nickpc0spam@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>>> The US Government classifies a PT Cruiser a "Truck," so using them as a
>>> reference is questionable.
>>>
>>
>> They do not.
>>
>>
>
> When Chrysler brought out the PT Cruiser,they designed it as a "light
> truck" so it would not have to meet stricter passenger car standards for
> fuel economy.(CAFE)
>
> see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_PT_Cruiser;
>
> It is a front-wheel drive 5-passenger vehicle, classified as a truck by the
> NHTSA for CAFE fuel economy calculations but as a car by most other
> metrics. Indeed, Chrysler specifically designed the PT Cruiser to fit the
> NHTSA criteria for a light truck in order to bring the average fuel
> efficiency of the company's light truck fleet into compliance with CAFE
> standards.[2]
>
Right. It was a conscious decision by Chrysler, not something done by
an idiotic government panel.
Chrysler used the rules to their advantage.
--
Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
joe at hits - buffalo dot com
"Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
time..." - Danny, American History X
> Joe <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo.com> wrote in
> news:slrng2pt4k.vda.joe@barada.griffincs.local:
>
>> On 2008-05-14, Nick Cassimatis <nickpc0spam@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>>> The US Government classifies a PT Cruiser a "Truck," so using them as a
>>> reference is questionable.
>>>
>>
>> They do not.
>>
>>
>
> When Chrysler brought out the PT Cruiser,they designed it as a "light
> truck" so it would not have to meet stricter passenger car standards for
> fuel economy.(CAFE)
>
> see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_PT_Cruiser;
>
> It is a front-wheel drive 5-passenger vehicle, classified as a truck by the
> NHTSA for CAFE fuel economy calculations but as a car by most other
> metrics. Indeed, Chrysler specifically designed the PT Cruiser to fit the
> NHTSA criteria for a light truck in order to bring the average fuel
> efficiency of the company's light truck fleet into compliance with CAFE
> standards.[2]
>
Right. It was a conscious decision by Chrysler, not something done by
an idiotic government panel.
Chrysler used the rules to their advantage.
--
Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
joe at hits - buffalo dot com
"Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
time..." - Danny, American History X
05-16-2008 | 08:20 AM
#24
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Plan on driving a new car on a 3000mile highway trip. Bad idea?
Joe <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo.com> wrote in
news:slrng2q7g8.vda.joe@barada.griffincs.local:
> On 2008-05-16, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:
>> Joe <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo.com> wrote in
>> news:slrng2pt4k.vda.joe@barada.griffincs.local:
>>
>>> On 2008-05-14, Nick Cassimatis <nickpc0spam@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>>>> The US Government classifies a PT Cruiser a "Truck," so using them
>>>> as a reference is questionable.
>>>>
>>>
>>> They do not.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> When Chrysler brought out the PT Cruiser,they designed it as a "light
>> truck" so it would not have to meet stricter passenger car standards
>> for fuel economy.(CAFE)
>>
>> see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_PT_Cruiser;
>>
>> It is a front-wheel drive 5-passenger vehicle, classified as a truck
>> by the NHTSA for CAFE fuel economy calculations but as a car by most
>> other metrics. Indeed, Chrysler specifically designed the PT Cruiser
>> to fit the NHTSA criteria for a light truck in order to bring the
>> average fuel efficiency of the company's light truck fleet into
>> compliance with CAFE standards.[2]
>>
>
> Right. It was a conscious decision by Chrysler, not something done by
> an idiotic government panel.
>
> Chrysler used the rules to their advantage.
>
>
yes,they designed the PT to -fit into- the *GOV'T* classification of "light
truck";the criteria is the government's.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
news:slrng2q7g8.vda.joe@barada.griffincs.local:
> On 2008-05-16, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:
>> Joe <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo.com> wrote in
>> news:slrng2pt4k.vda.joe@barada.griffincs.local:
>>
>>> On 2008-05-14, Nick Cassimatis <nickpc0spam@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>>>> The US Government classifies a PT Cruiser a "Truck," so using them
>>>> as a reference is questionable.
>>>>
>>>
>>> They do not.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> When Chrysler brought out the PT Cruiser,they designed it as a "light
>> truck" so it would not have to meet stricter passenger car standards
>> for fuel economy.(CAFE)
>>
>> see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_PT_Cruiser;
>>
>> It is a front-wheel drive 5-passenger vehicle, classified as a truck
>> by the NHTSA for CAFE fuel economy calculations but as a car by most
>> other metrics. Indeed, Chrysler specifically designed the PT Cruiser
>> to fit the NHTSA criteria for a light truck in order to bring the
>> average fuel efficiency of the company's light truck fleet into
>> compliance with CAFE standards.[2]
>>
>
> Right. It was a conscious decision by Chrysler, not something done by
> an idiotic government panel.
>
> Chrysler used the rules to their advantage.
>
>
yes,they designed the PT to -fit into- the *GOV'T* classification of "light
truck";the criteria is the government's.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
05-16-2008 | 01:02 PM
#25
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Plan on driving a new car on a 3000mile highway trip. Bad idea?
"Joe" <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo.com> wrote in message
news:slrng2q7g8.vda.joe@barada.griffincs.local...
> On 2008-05-16, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:
>> Joe <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo.com> wrote in
>> news:slrng2pt4k.vda.joe@barada.griffincs.local:
>>
>>> On 2008-05-14, Nick Cassimatis <nickpc0spam@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>>>> The US Government classifies a PT Cruiser a "Truck," so using them as a
>>>> reference is questionable.
>>>>
>>>
>>> They do not.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> When Chrysler brought out the PT Cruiser,they designed it as a "light
>> truck" so it would not have to meet stricter passenger car standards for
>> fuel economy.(CAFE)
>>
>> see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_PT_Cruiser;
>>
>> It is a front-wheel drive 5-passenger vehicle, classified as a truck by
>> the
>> NHTSA for CAFE fuel economy calculations but as a car by most other
>> metrics. Indeed, Chrysler specifically designed the PT Cruiser to fit the
>> NHTSA criteria for a light truck in order to bring the average fuel
>> efficiency of the company's light truck fleet into compliance with CAFE
>> standards.[2]
>>
>
> Right. It was a conscious decision by Chrysler, not something done by
> an idiotic government panel.
>
> Chrysler used the rules to their advantage.
>
>
> --
> Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
> joe at hits - buffalo dot com
> "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
> time..." - Danny, American History X
Which means that the US Government classifies a PT Cruiser as a "Truck."
But the convertible, which has a "trunk" rather than a "load bed" is a
"Car."
--
Nick
news:slrng2q7g8.vda.joe@barada.griffincs.local...
> On 2008-05-16, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:
>> Joe <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo.com> wrote in
>> news:slrng2pt4k.vda.joe@barada.griffincs.local:
>>
>>> On 2008-05-14, Nick Cassimatis <nickpc0spam@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>>>> The US Government classifies a PT Cruiser a "Truck," so using them as a
>>>> reference is questionable.
>>>>
>>>
>>> They do not.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> When Chrysler brought out the PT Cruiser,they designed it as a "light
>> truck" so it would not have to meet stricter passenger car standards for
>> fuel economy.(CAFE)
>>
>> see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_PT_Cruiser;
>>
>> It is a front-wheel drive 5-passenger vehicle, classified as a truck by
>> the
>> NHTSA for CAFE fuel economy calculations but as a car by most other
>> metrics. Indeed, Chrysler specifically designed the PT Cruiser to fit the
>> NHTSA criteria for a light truck in order to bring the average fuel
>> efficiency of the company's light truck fleet into compliance with CAFE
>> standards.[2]
>>
>
> Right. It was a conscious decision by Chrysler, not something done by
> an idiotic government panel.
>
> Chrysler used the rules to their advantage.
>
>
> --
> Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
> joe at hits - buffalo dot com
> "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
> time..." - Danny, American History X
Which means that the US Government classifies a PT Cruiser as a "Truck."
But the convertible, which has a "trunk" rather than a "load bed" is a
"Car."
--
Nick
05-16-2008 | 07:34 PM
#26
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Plan on driving a new car on a 3000mile highway trip. Bad idea?
"Nick Cassimatis" <nickpc0spam@nc.rr.com> wrote in
news:482dbe31$0$31747$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:
> "Joe" <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo.com> wrote in message
> news:slrng2q7g8.vda.joe@barada.griffincs.local...
>> On 2008-05-16, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:
>>> Joe <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo.com> wrote in
>>> news:slrng2pt4k.vda.joe@barada.griffincs.local:
>>>
>>>> On 2008-05-14, Nick Cassimatis <nickpc0spam@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>> The US Government classifies a PT Cruiser a "Truck," so using them
>>>>> as a reference is questionable.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They do not.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> When Chrysler brought out the PT Cruiser,they designed it as a
>>> "light truck" so it would not have to meet stricter passenger car
>>> standards for fuel economy.(CAFE)
>>>
>>> see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_PT_Cruiser;
>>>
>>> It is a front-wheel drive 5-passenger vehicle, classified as a truck
>>> by the
>>> NHTSA for CAFE fuel economy calculations but as a car by most other
>>> metrics. Indeed, Chrysler specifically designed the PT Cruiser to
>>> fit the NHTSA criteria for a light truck in order to bring the
>>> average fuel efficiency of the company's light truck fleet into
>>> compliance with CAFE standards.[2]
>>>
>>
>> Right. It was a conscious decision by Chrysler, not something done
>> by an idiotic government panel.
>>
>> Chrysler used the rules to their advantage.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
>> joe at hits - buffalo dot com
>> "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
>> time..." - Danny, American History X
>
> Which means that the US Government classifies a PT Cruiser as a
> "Truck." But the convertible, which has a "trunk" rather than a "load
> bed" is a "Car."
>
I guess the PT ragtop doesn't count towards Chrysler's truck CAFE.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
news:482dbe31$0$31747$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:
> "Joe" <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo.com> wrote in message
> news:slrng2q7g8.vda.joe@barada.griffincs.local...
>> On 2008-05-16, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:
>>> Joe <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo.com> wrote in
>>> news:slrng2pt4k.vda.joe@barada.griffincs.local:
>>>
>>>> On 2008-05-14, Nick Cassimatis <nickpc0spam@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>> The US Government classifies a PT Cruiser a "Truck," so using them
>>>>> as a reference is questionable.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They do not.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> When Chrysler brought out the PT Cruiser,they designed it as a
>>> "light truck" so it would not have to meet stricter passenger car
>>> standards for fuel economy.(CAFE)
>>>
>>> see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_PT_Cruiser;
>>>
>>> It is a front-wheel drive 5-passenger vehicle, classified as a truck
>>> by the
>>> NHTSA for CAFE fuel economy calculations but as a car by most other
>>> metrics. Indeed, Chrysler specifically designed the PT Cruiser to
>>> fit the NHTSA criteria for a light truck in order to bring the
>>> average fuel efficiency of the company's light truck fleet into
>>> compliance with CAFE standards.[2]
>>>
>>
>> Right. It was a conscious decision by Chrysler, not something done
>> by an idiotic government panel.
>>
>> Chrysler used the rules to their advantage.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
>> joe at hits - buffalo dot com
>> "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
>> time..." - Danny, American History X
>
> Which means that the US Government classifies a PT Cruiser as a
> "Truck." But the convertible, which has a "trunk" rather than a "load
> bed" is a "Car."
>
I guess the PT ragtop doesn't count towards Chrysler's truck CAFE.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
05-17-2008 | 04:24 AM
#27
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Plan on driving a new car on a 3000mile highway trip. Bad idea?
Jim Yanik wrote:
> Joe <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo.com> wrote in
> news:slrng2q7g8.vda.joe@barada.griffincs.local:
>
>
>>On 2008-05-16, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:
>>
>>>Joe <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo.com> wrote in
>>>news:slrng2pt4k.vda.joe@barada.griffincs.loca l:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On 2008-05-14, Nick Cassimatis <nickpc0spam@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>The US Government classifies a PT Cruiser a "Truck," so using them
>>>>>as a reference is questionable.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>They do not.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>When Chrysler brought out the PT Cruiser,they designed it as a "light
>>>truck" so it would not have to meet stricter passenger car standards
>>>for fuel economy.(CAFE)
>>>
>>>see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_PT_Cruiser;
>>>
>>>It is a front-wheel drive 5-passenger vehicle, classified as a truck
>>>by the NHTSA for CAFE fuel economy calculations but as a car by most
>>>other metrics. Indeed, Chrysler specifically designed the PT Cruiser
>>>to fit the NHTSA criteria for a light truck in order to bring the
>>>average fuel efficiency of the company's light truck fleet into
>>>compliance with CAFE standards.[2]
>>>
>>
>>Right. It was a conscious decision by Chrysler, not something done by
>>an idiotic government panel.
>>
>>Chrysler used the rules to their advantage.
>>
>>
>
>
> yes,they designed the PT to -fit into- the *GOV'T* classification of "light
> truck";the criteria is the government's.
>
Do you work for Detroit? They gamed the system to save some money.
They did the sme thing with safety features like steel beams in doors -
left them out of their "light trucks" like at least one minivan that was
being marketed as a family car.
> Joe <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo.com> wrote in
> news:slrng2q7g8.vda.joe@barada.griffincs.local:
>
>
>>On 2008-05-16, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:
>>
>>>Joe <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo.com> wrote in
>>>news:slrng2pt4k.vda.joe@barada.griffincs.loca l:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On 2008-05-14, Nick Cassimatis <nickpc0spam@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>The US Government classifies a PT Cruiser a "Truck," so using them
>>>>>as a reference is questionable.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>They do not.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>When Chrysler brought out the PT Cruiser,they designed it as a "light
>>>truck" so it would not have to meet stricter passenger car standards
>>>for fuel economy.(CAFE)
>>>
>>>see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_PT_Cruiser;
>>>
>>>It is a front-wheel drive 5-passenger vehicle, classified as a truck
>>>by the NHTSA for CAFE fuel economy calculations but as a car by most
>>>other metrics. Indeed, Chrysler specifically designed the PT Cruiser
>>>to fit the NHTSA criteria for a light truck in order to bring the
>>>average fuel efficiency of the company's light truck fleet into
>>>compliance with CAFE standards.[2]
>>>
>>
>>Right. It was a conscious decision by Chrysler, not something done by
>>an idiotic government panel.
>>
>>Chrysler used the rules to their advantage.
>>
>>
>
>
> yes,they designed the PT to -fit into- the *GOV'T* classification of "light
> truck";the criteria is the government's.
>
Do you work for Detroit? They gamed the system to save some money.
They did the sme thing with safety features like steel beams in doors -
left them out of their "light trucks" like at least one minivan that was
being marketed as a family car.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B
Honda Mailing List
204
05-20-2008 11:51 PM
Samy
Honda Civic - Del Sol - CRX
2
12-05-2007 10:47 PM
T L via CarKB.com
Honda Mailing List
13
11-30-2005 10:29 AM
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)