If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Magnulus wrote: > On the Civic? Compare the Civic to the Ford Focus, the Civic has much > better fuel economy by a wide margin (high 30's vs. mid 20's). The Civic > also has a little less horsepower, I believe. Maybe on the Camrys and > Accords they are going the power route, but still, they have better fuel > economy than big American cars. According to fueleconomy.gov - 2005 Ford Focus with the 2L 4 cylinder and 5 speed manual transmission - 26 mpg city /35 mpg highway Civics are a hard one to compare ...there are so many models. The "lean burn" Civic is rated 36/44 (where is that one sold?). The Civic hybrid is rated 45/51 (although no testers actually achieve this). The model closest to a Focus, the 2L 4 cylinder, 5 speed Manual Si Model is rated 26 mpg city /31 mpg highway. So...you are right and you are wrong. Some Civics are better than some Foci and some are worse. The 2L Civic Si is worse than the 2L Focus, despite being 10% smaller and significantly slower. Any 1.7L Civic is better than any 2L Focus, but then those Civic models are both smaller and much slower. Ed |
Ads |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Magnulus wrote: > > "Matthew Russotto" > wrote in message > news > > > > > > On the Civic? Compare the Civic to the Ford Focus, the Civic has > much > > >better fuel economy by a wide margin (high 30's vs. mid 20's). > > > > As Ronald Reagan might say "There you go again"... comparing two > > completely different vehicles and trying to pretend one particular > > difference is the cause. > > -- > > The Civic and Focus are directly comparable. They are both compact cars. > > If the Civic is not good enough for you, compare the Focus and Corolla. > The Corolla hsa better fuel economy, too. The reason is in the engines. > Ford does not use variable valve timing in most of the Focus engines- or any > of their cars. Most American automakers don't. As with the Civic, some Corolla models are better than some Foci models and some are not. However, all Corollas are smaller and slower than the Focus. The 1.8L (premium gas), 6 speed manual Corolla "Sports" model is rated 26 city / 34 highway. The comparable 2L, 5 speed manual Focus is rated 26 city / 35 highway despite being both larger and faster (but only a little faster, both are faster than the fastest Civic). And the Corolla is even smaller than the Civic. Makes you wonder about the supposed technological advantage of the Japanese small cars. Apparently if you can live with small and slow, then the Japanese cars will get better fuel mileage. However, as soon as you go for better performance, the fuel economy advantage vanishes...iamagine that. And you still have to live with small. Ed |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
In article >,
"C. E. White" > wrote: > > >Lloyd Parker wrote: >> >> In article >, >> DTJ > wrote: >> >On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 19:42:15 -0500, "Vendicar Decarian" > >> >wrote: >> > >> >> >> >>"DTJ" > wrote in message >> >>> You liberals sure like to throw around make believe terms about >> >>> government. >> >> >> >>By now it's well known how Bush turned the $127 billion surplus he >> >>inherited in 2001 into a historic $413 billion deficit by 2004. It's >> > >> >Hey retard, there was no surplus. Your "lockbox" for SS was a fraud, >> >and your favorite Ken Lay supporter, slick willy klinton, used all the >> >SS money to make it appear, to low life incompetent fools like >> >yourself, that he had a surplus. >> > >> > >> 1. SS has a surplus, a trust fund, that is invested in gov't bonds. >> 2. For 2 years under Clinton, the gov't had a surplus, not counting SS. > >Item 2 is not true. >They did include the SS revenue when >declaring a surplus. The last 2 years under Clinton, there was a surplus even w/o counting the SS surplus. If you look at the data, you see those 2 years, revenues exceeded expenditures and the debt held by the public declined. >As for "1" while technically true, the >money is spent and the "investment" is little more than a >bookkeeping fiction. > No, the money is no more fiction than when you buy a savings bond. > >Ed |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Lloyd Parker wrote: > > In article >, > DTJ > wrote: > >On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 19:42:15 -0500, "Vendicar Decarian" > > >wrote: > > > >> > >>"DTJ" > wrote in message > >>> You liberals sure like to throw around make believe terms about > >>> government. > >> > >>By now it's well known how Bush turned the $127 billion surplus he > >>inherited in 2001 into a historic $413 billion deficit by 2004. It's > > > >Hey retard, there was no surplus. Your "lockbox" for SS was a fraud, > >and your favorite Ken Lay supporter, slick willy klinton, used all the > >SS money to make it appear, to low life incompetent fools like > >yourself, that he had a surplus. > > > > > 1. SS has a surplus, a trust fund, that is invested in gov't bonds. > 2. For 2 years under Clinton, the gov't had a surplus, not counting SS. Item 2 is not true. They did include the SS revenue when declaring a surplus. As for "1" while technically true, the money is spent and the "investment" is little more than a bookkeeping fiction. Ed |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
|
#86
|
|||
|
|||
|
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Big Bill wrote:
(Lloyd Parker) >> DTJ > wrote: >>> "Vendicar Decarian" > >>>>"DTJ" > wrote in message SNIp.... >>>>By now it's well known how Bush turned the $127 billion surplus he >>>>inherited in 2001 into a historic $413 billion deficit by 2004. It's >>> >>>Hey retard, there was no surplus. Your "lockbox" for SS was a fraud, >>>and your favorite Ken Lay supporter, slick willy klinton, used all the >>>SS money to make it appear, to low life incompetent fools like >>>yourself, that he had a surplus. In which case there was a surplus in Fiscal 1999, 2000, and 2001 http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm Look at the bottom where the public debt per year is given. Since the social security lockbox does not exist that means you think the intragovernmental holdings (Social Security special bonds) are not real, and so you agree that the public debt did decrease. >>> >>1. SS has a surplus, a trust fund, that is invested in gov't bonds. > > Do you know what those bonds are? They are Treasury bonds. Do you knw > where the funds to redeem those bonds are? Neither does anyone else. > Same place the funds to redeem the public debt are. This is a silly argument because to say that there is no money to redeem the Social Security Treasury bonds is the same as saying there is no money to redeem any Treasury bond. >>2. For 2 years under Clinton, the gov't had a surplus, not counting SS.> > Do you know WHY? Do you know what happened to stop those surpluses? > You should, if you're as smart as you think you are. > And no, it had nothing to do with Bush, as he wasn't elected before > this happened. Oh, you mean those large tax cuts in 2001, and 2002. Hmm, glad to know you think Clinton was responsible for those. > >>Retard, look to the beam in your eye first. I love your way of hitting yourself in the face josh halpern > |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
"C. E. White" > wrote in message ... > Item 2 is not true. They did include the SS revenue when > declaring a surplus. The SS Surplus is government revenue. Hence the surplus. "C. E. White" > wrote in message ... > As for "1" while technically true, the > money is spent and the "investment" is little more than a > bookkeeping fiction. It represents a long term liability... yes. Yet under Clinton, the publicly held debt declined over his last three years in office. And in the middle year, without the SS Surplus, total liabilities increased by only 14 billion. Meanwhile Under Bush, not only is the SS Surplus treated the same way, but Bush now deficit spends $450 billion a year. A figure that will continue unchanged because of Bush's economic policy for the next decade. So long suckers.... |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
"Big Bill" > wrote in message ... > No, when I buy a Savings Bond, the money is real; I know, I paid it. > However, when I want to redeem it, the scale is far lower than when > the SS Bonds will come due; the Government can cover it. No more real than the dollars used by the Social Security system to purchase U.S. bonds and treasuries. Stupid... Stupid... Billyboy. "Big Bill" > wrote in message ... > The Government can't cover those bonds used to replace the funds in the SS > account. Don't be silly. That would mean that the there is no faith to be had in the U.S. financial system, and that U.S. government bonds were a worthless investment. Once the world realizes this, the 1.5 trillion the world lends the U.S. yearly will vanish. What will happen to the U.S. economy then Jacko? Snicker.... The U.S. is just an animated corpse at this point. So long suckers..... |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
In article >,
Big Bill > wrote: >On Mon, 28 Mar 05 10:50:11 GMT, (Lloyd Parker) >wrote: > >>In article >, >> DTJ > wrote: >>>On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 19:42:15 -0500, "Vendicar Decarian" > >>>wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>"DTJ" > wrote in message >>>>> You liberals sure like to throw around make believe terms about >>>>> government. >>>> >>>>By now it's well known how Bush turned the $127 billion surplus he >>>>inherited in 2001 into a historic $413 billion deficit by 2004. It's >>> >>>Hey retard, there was no surplus. Your "lockbox" for SS was a fraud, >>>and your favorite Ken Lay supporter, slick willy klinton, used all the >>>SS money to make it appear, to low life incompetent fools like >>>yourself, that he had a surplus. >>> >>> >>1. SS has a surplus, a trust fund, that is invested in gov't bonds. > >Do you know what those bonds are? They are Treasury bonds. Yep, just like thousands of investors own, little different from savings bonds. > Do you knw >where the funds to redeem those bonds are? Neither does anyone else. If people with treasury bonds, T bills, and savings bonds cash them in, where does that money come from? When the foreign investors holding trillions of dollars of US debt obligations redeem them, where does that money come from? Bush seems to believe it'll never have to be paid. >>2. For 2 years under Clinton, the gov't had a surplus, not counting SS. > >Do you know WHY? Do you know what happened to stop those surpluses? Yep, Bush squandered them. >You should, if you're as smart as you think you are. >And no, it had nothing to do with Bush, as he wasn't elected before >this happened. >> The surpluses were during the last 2 years of Clinton. >>Retard, look to the beam in your eye first. > |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What's new S4 Auto owners getting for fuel economy?? | quattroA4cars | Audi | 15 | April 6th 05 07:10 AM |
bigger wheels = less fuel economy? | The Devil's Advocate© | VW water cooled | 8 | March 20th 05 12:01 AM |
Engine type & Fuel Economy | Tom Varco | Technology | 21 | March 9th 05 09:28 PM |
Failed Smog Check 1981 Trans AM | TheSmogTech | Technology | 0 | January 30th 05 04:16 PM |
Change in fuel economy with roof racks on A4 Avant? | Robert | Audi | 7 | August 7th 04 11:52 AM |