Prev: Trucks and right lanes (Vic)
Next: 88 Tarago
From: Trevor Wilson on 25 Jul 2010 18:59 I was thinking about this over the weekend. Anyone know what the fuel consumption figures of the PM's Com-Car is? I assume it is a V8. Fuel consumption would be no better than 9L/100km. Combined figures are going to be considerably worse. My 1992 6 cyl Dunny-dore returns around 7.5 L/100km. I reckong that figure is probably superior to the PM's car. What am I going to get (that has similar load carrying capacity of my Dunny Dore) with better fuel economy? A Diesel van? No thanks. Let's see the Pollys place themselves into Diesels or Prius' BEFORE I am forced to trade up(?) to a new car. [Shakes head] -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
From: hippo on 25 Jul 2010 19:14 Trevor Wilson wrote: > > I was thinking about this over the weekend. > > Anyone know what the fuel consumption figures of the PM's Com-Car is? > > I assume it is a V8. Fuel consumption would be no better than 9L/100km. > Combined figures are going to be considerably worse. > > My 1992 6 cyl Dunny-dore returns around 7.5 L/100km. I reckong that figure > is probably superior to the PM's car. What am I going to get (that has > similar load carrying capacity of my Dunny Dore) with better fuel economy? A > Diesel van? > > No thanks. > > Let's see the Pollys place themselves into Diesels or Prius' BEFORE I am > forced to trade up(?) to a new car. > > [Shakes head] > > If you factor in running cost rather than straight out consumption, a dedicated gas Falcon would probably snot the VP and return significantly lower emissions figures as well. You'd get more toys too. Just think, all of this and the warm fuzzy feeling from helping Ford Australia out of a jam! :) -- Posted at www.usenet.com.au
From: who where on 25 Jul 2010 20:52 On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 10:22:08 +1000, Sylvia Else <sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: >All we need to do is correct the current impression in the minds of >passengers that it's somehow wrong for them to gang up and kick the >stuffing out of thugs on trains. Then there'll be no more need for >transit guards. that assumes of course that the passengers outnumber the thugs rather than the converse. Unsound assumption.
From: Noddy on 25 Jul 2010 22:46 "Trevor Wilson" <trevor(a)rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message news:8b3tvvFn0tU1(a)mid.individual.net... > Let's see the Pollys place themselves into Diesels or Prius' BEFORE I am > forced to trade up(?) to a new car. > > [Shakes head] As I understand it, Gillard's version of the "cash for clunkers" scheme is an incentive, not compulsory, so I don't think anyone will be forcing you to do anything. -- Regards, Noddy.
From: Trevor Wilson on 25 Jul 2010 23:15
"Noddy" <Mission.Control(a)NASA.com> wrote in message news:4c4cf6fc$0$12395$c30e37c6(a)exi-reader.telstra.net... > > "Trevor Wilson" <trevor(a)rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message > news:8b3tvvFn0tU1(a)mid.individual.net... > >> Let's see the Pollys place themselves into Diesels or Prius' BEFORE I am >> forced to trade up(?) to a new car. >> >> [Shakes head] > > As I understand it, Gillard's version of the "cash for clunkers" scheme is > an incentive, not compulsory, so I don't think anyone will be forcing you > to do anything. **I agree. Part of point is that it is highly likely that my 'clunker' manages better fuel consumption than the PM's Com-Car. If pollies want us to invest in better fuel economy, then they should be driving around in Prius' (or is that Priii?) or a Diesel first. Those boats that most pollies tool around in are horrible consumers of fuel. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |