Re: Fuel Prices... again...

me@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:

> On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 05:05:26 GMT, Grumpy AuContraire
> <Grumpy@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Which illustrates the ignorance of trans****ting commodities long 
>>distance by truck when rail is a lot more efficient.
>>
>>Trucks should be limited to local deliveries in surrounding areas near 
>>major rail hubs.
>>
>>JT
> 
> 
>  CTX?? was running an ad on NPR recently over that fact..
> they stated that the AVERAGE cost of trans****ting anything by rail is
> 436 MPG per loaded ton.
> 
>  to make that in perspective, your POS Ford SUV that gets 7 MPG would
> have to get at LEAST 250 MPG to equal what the trains can do.
> 
> 
>  As far as the lots of cars get over 30 mpg-  I walked into my local
> Ford AND GM dealer and ASKED- you got ANYTHING AVAILABLE that gets a
> REAL 30mpg, NOT that crap EPA rating, and BOTH said NO.
> 
>  Ford has a hybrid but it is highly NOT recommended you use it for
> highway driving at all- its fine surburban or city but not on a 30
> mile trip one way.
> 
>  GM's I dont know about, but they are not in any demand around where I
> am for some reason.
>  I see some Prius now and then, and if I was looking at a good MPG
> vehicle that would be it.
> 
> 
>  NEITHER Ford or Chevy as far as I have seen make ANYTHING small that
> gets over 20 mpg epa rating.  Was looking at a price sticker on a new
> ranger, as equipped it was $38k, and the epa rate said 17 mpg.
> 
>  Sorry-not interested.
> 
> --****va--


Which is exactly why I resurrected an ol' '83 Honda Civic that gets an 
honest 42 mpg in mixed driving. While I paid a whopping $100 for the car 
in 2005 and poured another $500 into it, it's paid for, cheap to insure 
and is virtually glued to the highway like a s****ts car.

And, even the radio works!

JT