Various Topics on Toyota

"Philip®" <1chip-state1@earthlink.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:4Wx2c.22846$yZ1.14882@newsread2.news.pas.eart hlink.net...
> In news:404a988b@news.bnb-lp.com,
> Gmlyle@scvnet.com <Gmlyle@scvnet.com> being of bellicose mind posted:
> > "Philip®" <1chip-state1@earthlink.net.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:7%T1c.19814$yZ1.7320@newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net...
> > > Bill: The ONLY rational question to ask you is (since a 160 hp
> > > Camry is not slow): WHAT are you comparing a new four cylinder
> > > Camry to?
> > >
> > > In my "fleet" I've got two motorcycles that likely make your car
> > > look like a stone from 0-100 mph. At the other end of the
> > > spectrum, I"ve got a diesel powered Datsun truck (no turbo). It
> > > has all the acceleration of a 36 hp VW Beetle. IN the middle, a
> > > 2003 Corolla with only 132 hp. Plenty of zip for the mountains
> > > of California and short freeway onramps.
> >
> > People seem to have become so spoiled with the typical power of
> > today's vehicles that they don't remember what "slow" was.
> >
> > My '72 Datsun had about 100 optimistic horsepower and did just
> > fine. My '69 Beetle made about 50HP and never had any problem
> > keeping up with traffic. My '71 VW bus was the poster child for
> > slow, but as long as I didn't try to play in the fast lane it
> > moved along just fine.
> >
> > These days, people are mad if they can't climb steep hills at
> > 15MPH over the speed limit!
>
> "Gmlyle": Back to back today, I drove my recently acquired diesel
> Datsun pickup (61 hp, 105 ft/lbs torque) out to a "rescue" call.
> Drove a 1988 Corvette back (240 hp, 340 ft/lbs torque, 4 spd auto).
> Talk about OPPOSITE ends of the power spectrum!!! Wow!
>
> I can't help but set you right about your '69 Beetle. It's not that
> you had any trouble keeping up with traffic ... rather NOBODY had
> trouble keeping up with you. LOL

I've outgrown the need to have the fastest car on the road. No sense paying
for a 130MPH car and paying for the gas to run another 2 or 4 cylinders when
you can only go 70 or so most of the time. My 108HP xB is quick enough.

..o.. .. ..ori..

On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 04:54:24 GMT, "Philip®"

>I can't help but set you right about your '69 Beetle. It's not that
>you had any trouble keeping up with traffic ... rather NOBODY had
>trouble keeping up with you. LOL

I must take exception...

Way back when...

I was 'racing' an Olds thru south Louisiana and came up over a
hill...cop there with radar...

He looked down at my speed...back up at me

....and nailed the guy in the Olds...could NOT believe how fast I was
going and probably said..hell if he can drive that piece of shiiiite
that fast..he deserves a p***... <g>



Scott in Florida

..ili..

In news:4t4m401mpqrphh4ufe9nei7gnno57qjooc@4ax.com,
Scott in Florida <NotInThisLifetime@nope.ucan't> being of bellicose
mind posted:
> On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 04:54:24 GMT, "Philip®"
>
> > I can't help but set you right about your '69 Beetle. It's not
> > that you had any trouble keeping up with traffic ... rather
> > NOBODY had trouble keeping up with you. LOL
>
> I must take exception...
>
> Way back when...
>
> I was 'racing' an Olds thru south Louisiana and came up over a
> hill...cop there with radar...
>
> He looked down at my speed...back up at me
>
> ...and nailed the guy in the Olds...could NOT believe how fast I
> was going and probably said..hell if he can drive that piece of
> shiiiite that fast..he deserves a p***... <g>
>
>
>
> Scott in Florida

Scott .... you've had enough Adult Beverage. Besides, the first liar
doesn't stand a chance. LOL
--

- Philip @ Maximum Torque RPM

.... ....

On 6 Mar 2004 18:30:42 GMT, "Tegger®"
<teggeratistopdotcom@changetheobvious.invalid> wrote:

>It *is* not-scarce.
>Worldwide proven and probable gas and oil reserves allow for something like
>50 or 100years of consumption at today's rates.

Oh? And how do you know this?

The numbers from the US government give a rather different answer for
oil:

http://www.ott.doe.gov/facts/archives/fotw220supp.shtml

If we take these numbers at face value, we get 35 years.

But ~80% of the reported "proven and probable" reserves are in OPEC.
OPEC doesn't release audited data. We just have to take OPEC's word
on how much they have...

Is OPEC telling the truth?


--
Phil Hays
Phil_hays at posting domain should work for email

..cha.. ..humach..

> You believe that way only because you don't understand how the
> American federal tax system operates. Don't feel bad most
> Americas are naive' about taxes.

Hey, no ****:


> A tax deduction on the other hand is
> a dollar for dollar reduction is the total TAX due.

Uh, no, that is a tax credit. Ignorance of definitions and other facts reduces
the value of your argument.

..cha.. ..humach..

>
> > He must have been thinking of the tax deduction, which is $1500 for
> > eligible cars put into service in 2004.
>
> $2,000, according to this article:
> http://www.gaspig.com/nytimes11.htm

That article is a year old. The deduction was $2,000 for original owners of
vehicles purchased and put into service through 2003. It's $1500 for 2004,
$1,000 for 2005, $500 for 2006, and then under current law it ends. See
<http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/tax_hybrid.shtml>


[Example of General Motors' desire to suckle at the public teat deleted]

> It's only a matter of time. Social engineering you know. We need to
> impoverish people so we can save them.

The same argument applies even better to business tax credits. You might spend
some time thinking about why you believe that business profits are more
important than breathing clean air (or, more to the point, why a majority of
your fellow citizens might disagree).

..cha.. ..humach..

>
> > > NONSENSE. 160 hp 2.5 liter four cylinder isn't enough power to
> > > move a 3,000 lb car? Get off it!
> >
> > Oh, it will move, but why settle for that ****py performance?
>
> So anything less than 300 horsepower in a 3,000 lb car is probably
> "****py" performance to you. Get off it.

This illustrates a natural human prejudice: "anything *I* like is Good
Enough".


>
>
> > Those who want to see what electric motors are capable of should
> > consider the TZero from AC Propulsion, at
> > <http://acpropulsion.com/tzero_pages/tzero_home.htm>
> >
> > 0 to 60 in 4.1 seconds, 1/4 mile in 13.2 seconds. It will do this
> > repeatedly, long after the clutches in the Porsches and Ferraris
> > start to smell real bad.
> >
> > Will a hybrid Camry do that? No, but it will beat its non-hybrid
> > cousin, and have better fuel economy, and have lower emissions.
> > The age of the green muscle car is upon us.
>
> Would you mind posting the Prius / Camry / Corolla 0-60 and 1/4 mile
> times? Thanks.

Sure! Figures as determined by Motor Week:

Model 0-60 1/4 mile
2004 Prius 10.2 17.7 @ 79 MPH
2003 Corolla 4-cyl 8.0 16.3 @ 87 MPH
2002 Camry 8.1 16.2 @ 88 MPH

Anything else I can help you with?

Are you going to ***ert that the forthcoming hybrid Camry cannot possibly
have better performance than the conventional version because the 2004
Prius has less performance than the Corolla? My heavens! Don't bet yer
401(k) on that :_>

..keHun.. ..ilcity.c..

Failure to understand the facts one reads reflects on the
intelligence of reader, not the person posting the facts.
A TAX DEDUCTION is a CREDIT toward the total TAX due after
all gross income deductions, as is the cae with the Prius.
An INCOME DEDUCTION, accelerated at 80%, as was the case with
trucks only allows a deduction from gross income to be tax
free, as explained below, if you care to re-read what was
posted. It appears you still don't understand how that portion of
the American federal tax system operates, even after it is
explained to you. You have proven that to be the case with your
continuos comments on a subject of which you obviously have
little or no knowledge. I guess I will have to leave the
discussion at that.


mike hunt



Richard Schumacher wrote:
>
> > You believe that way only because you don't understand how the
> > American federal tax system operates. Don't feel bad most
> > Americas are naive' about taxes.
>
> Hey, no ****:
>
> > A tax deduction on the other hand is
> > a dollar for dollar reduction is the total TAX due.
>
> Uh, no, that is a tax credit. Ignorance of definitions and other facts reduces
> the value of your argument.


You believe that way only because you don't understand how the
American federal tax system operates. Don't feel bad most
Americas are naive' about taxes. The politicians like it that
way, they want your to think they are giving you something when
they take your money to buy your vote.. The only time a
politician can GIVE you anything is by taking less of your taxes,
period, not by giving you some back after they take it. For one
thing there is a HUGE difference between a tax 'write off' and a
tax 'deduction.' When a company 'writes off' an amount of money
from it gross income, it saves ONLY the tax that would have been
due on that amount, not the total amount. The same as American
home owners can take a deduction from total income for the
interest the pay on a home. A tax deduction on the other hand is
a dollar for dollar reduction is the total TAX due. Same as
Americans can take $1,000 credit off of their tax due, for each
child. The recent incentive for the purchase of a large truck by
a business actually generated MORE money for the treasury of the
various governments and helped create work for Americans. Prior
to the incentive a business could always deduct the cost of the
truck from gross income, as a cost of doing business. They had to
do so over a five year period. I.E. If they spent 50,000 for a
truck they would save the tax on $10,000 a year for five years.
As an economic stimulus the tax incentive allowed the business to
take the deduction from gross income in ONE year rather than
five, if they chose to, but they could only deduct 80% of the
cost from their gross income, not 100%. They still paid the tax
on $10,000 this year and will pay tax on $10,000 more every year
for the next four years. The federal treasury gets more money,
not less. In addition the income to the truck manufacture is
taxed and the 'business' generated by that sale produces more
federal, state and local taxes for those governments, as well. A
win win situation for every American. In the case of the Prius,
on the other hand the tax deduction reduces the money to the
federal treasury, creates work for Japanese workers, p***es the
saving on to a Japanese foreign corporation that pays not one
penny in federal corporate income taxes. A win for the buyer, the
Toyota dealer, a foreign corporation, and Japanese workers. A
total loss to the treasury, and no gain to the American economy
and the loss of one more American made vehicle. At best it is
merely an immeasurable and questionably advantage to the local
environment because of the batteries in an effort to placate the
environuts hoping to keep them quite for a time.