"Nick Cassimatis" <nickpc0spam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
news:482dbe31$0$31747$4c368faf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Joe" <joe@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:slrng2q7g8.vda.joe@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On 2008-05-16, Jim Yanik <jyanik@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> Joe <joe@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>>> news:slrng2pt4k.vda.joe@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>>> On 2008-05-14, Nick Cassimatis <nickpc0spam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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
|
