| It's the 70s all over again... [message #794394] |
Fri, 15 February 2008 15:56 |
|
The stagflation, an unpopular war that's going no where, new CAFE laws,
high fuel prices, loss of manufacturing, more emmissions regulation in
the works, and now an insurance company war on horsepower:
http://news.windingroad.com/car-buying/insurers-rallying-for -war-on-horespower/
All we need now is DISCO!
|
|
|
| Re: It's the 70s all over again... [message #794396 ] |
Fri, 15 February 2008 16:31 |
|
"Brent P" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:QPednVD0bsOHNSjanZ2dnUVZ_qXinZ2d [at] comcast.com...
>
> The stagflation, an unpopular war that's going no where, new CAFE
> laws,
> high fuel prices, loss of manufacturing, more emmissions regulation
> in
> the works, and now an insurance company war on horsepower:
>
> http://news.windingroad.com/car-buying/insurers-rallying-for -war-on-horespower/
I hate the IIHS! They have promoted more useless "safety" innovations
than Joan Claybrook.
The correlation drawn in the article between a Grand Prix and an
Altima is ridiculous unless we have actual accident involvement rates.
It is very likely that the difference in average loss rates is do to
the fact that for Nissans are more expensive to repair, or that they
are bought by less conservative drivers than Pontiacs.
Let me put the "theory to the test":
From
http://www.iihs.org/research/hldi/composite_cls.aspx?cls=2&a mp;sort=name&sz=2
Vehicle All Losses Rating
Ford Focus 120
Ford 500 75
Chrysler 300 104
Chrysler 300 (Hemi) 101
Chevrolet Corvette 80
Ford Mustang GT 102
Ford Mustang (V6) 121
Dodge Stratus 132
Nissan Altima 113
Nissan Maxim 112
Pontiac Grand Prix 98
Chevrolet Aveo 121
Toyota Corolla 113
Hmmmmmm..I don't see a pattern relating horsepower to insurance
losses.......especially since the most power car in the list has one
of the lowest loss ratings and one of the least powerful car in the
list has the highest....or that V-6 Mustangs have a higher loss rating
that Mustang GTs.....
Ed
|
|
|
| Re: It's the 70s all over again... [message #794398 ] |
Fri, 15 February 2008 16:43 |
|
In article <47b5b0ab$1 [at] kcnews01>, C. E. White wrote:
>
> "Brent P" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:QPednVD0bsOHNSjanZ2dnUVZ_qXinZ2d [at] comcast.com...
>>
>> The stagflation, an unpopular war that's going no where, new CAFE
>> laws,
>> high fuel prices, loss of manufacturing, more emmissions regulation
>> in
>> the works, and now an insurance company war on horsepower:
>>
>> http://news.windingroad.com/car-buying/insurers-rallying-for -war-on-horespower/
>
> I hate the IIHS! They have promoted more useless "safety" innovations
> than Joan Claybrook.
>
> The correlation drawn in the article between a Grand Prix and an
> Altima is ridiculous unless we have actual accident involvement rates.
> It is very likely that the difference in average loss rates is do to
> the fact that for Nissans are more expensive to repair, or that they
> are bought by less conservative drivers than Pontiacs.
>
> Let me put the "theory to the test":
>
> From
> http://www.iihs.org/research/hldi/composite_cls.aspx?cls=2&a mp;sort=name&sz=2
>
> Vehicle All Losses Rating
> Ford Focus 120
> Ford 500 75
> Chrysler 300 104
> Chrysler 300 (Hemi) 101
> Chevrolet Corvette 80
> Ford Mustang GT 102
> Ford Mustang (V6) 121
> Dodge Stratus 132
> Nissan Altima 113
> Nissan Maxim 112
> Pontiac Grand Prix 98
> Chevrolet Aveo 121
> Toyota Corolla 113
>
> Hmmmmmm..I don't see a pattern relating horsepower to insurance
> losses.......especially since the most power car in the list has one
> of the lowest loss ratings and one of the least powerful car in the
> list has the highest....or that V-6 Mustangs have a higher loss rating
> that Mustang GTs.....
of course its nonsense. It always was. But it seems a lot of nonsense
ideas from the 70s are back in fashion.
|
|
|
| Re: It's the 70s all over again... [message #794453 ] |
Fri, 15 February 2008 21:32 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: It's the 70s all over again... [message #796393 ] |
Fri, 29 February 2008 12:52 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
