Auto Mobiles Updates: alt.autos - 25 new messages in 1 topic

alt.autos
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos?hl=en

Today's topics:

* Consumer Reports: GM's Volt 'doesn't really make a lot of sense' - 25
messages, 10 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos/t/360dc4f4d62b4736?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Consumer Reports: GM's Volt 'doesn't really make a lot of sense'
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos/t/360dc4f4d62b4736?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 25 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 1 2011 8:34 pm
From: "Existential Angst"

"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:ikipsd$i8b$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Consumer Reports: GM's Volt 'doesn't really make a lot of sense'
>
> David Shepardson / Detroit News Washington Bureau
>
> Washington - Consumer Reports offered a harsh initial review of the
> Chevrolet Volt, questioning whether General Motors Co.'s flagship vehicle
> makes economic "sense."The extended-range plug-in electric vehicle is on
> the cover of the April issue - the influential magazine's annual survey of
> vehicles - but the GM vehicle comes in for criticism.
>
> "When you are looking at purely dollars and cents, it doesn't really make
> a lot of sense. The Volt isn't particularly efficient as an electric
> vehicle and it's not particularly good as a gas vehicle either in terms of
> fuel economy," said David Champion, the senior director of Consumer
> Reports auto testing center at a meeting with reporters here. "This is
> going to be a tough sell to the average consumer."
>
> The magazine said in its testing in Connecticut during a harsh winter, its
> Volt is getting 25 to 27 miles on electric power alone.
>
> GM spokesman Greg Martin noted that it's been an extremely harsh winter -
> and as a Volt driver he said he's getting 29-33 miles on electric range.
> But he noted that in more moderate recent weather, the range jumped to 40
> miles on electric range or higher.
>
> Champion believes a hybrid, such as the Toyota Prius, may make more sense
> for some trips.
>
> "If you drive about 70 miles, a Prius will actually get you more miles per
> gallon than the Volt does," Champion said.
>
> But GM has noted that most Americans can avoid using gasoline for most
> regular commuting with the Volt, while its gasoline engine can allow the
> freedom to travel farther, if needed.
>
> The magazine has put about 2,500 miles on its Volt. It paid $48,700,
> including a $5,000 markup by a Chevy dealer.
>
> Champion noted the Volt is about twice as expensive as a Prius.
>
> He was said the five hour time to recharge the Volt was "annoying" and was
> also critical of the power of the Volt heating system.
>
> "You have seat heaters, which keep your body warm, but your feet get cold
> and your hands get cold," Champion said.
>
> Consumer Reports will release a full road test of the Volt later this year
> and will update it.
>
> Champion praised the heater on the all-electric Nissan Leaf - which
> Consumer Reports borrowed from the Japanese automaker -- but said it also
> got very short ranges in very cold weather.
>
> On one commute, his range in a Leaf was at 43 miles when he turned onto an
> eight-mile stretch of highway, but it fell from 43 to 16 miles after eight
> miles at 70 mph.
>
> "If it keeps on going down at this rate, will I get to work," Champion
> said.
>
> Champion said in an interview he thinks the Volt "will sell the quantity
> that they want to sell to the people that really want it."
>
> Despite his criticism of the Volt, Champion praised its acceleration and
> acknowledged that under certain driving cycles, consumers could mostly
> avoid using gasoline. The magazine noted the Volt is nicely equipped and
> has a "taut yet supple ride."
>
> But he said there are a lot of trade-offs.
>
> "They are going to live with the compromises the vehicle delivers,"
> Champion said. "When you look at it from a purely logical point of view,
> it doesn't make an awful lot of sense."
>
> Before Consumer Reports decides whether to recommend the Volt, it needs
> data from at least 100 subscribers who own one, and a year of reliability
> data.
>
> dshepardson@detnews.com
>
> From The Detroit News:
> http://detnews.com/article/20110228/AUTO01/102280401/Consumer-Reports--GM's-Volt-'doesn't-really-make-a-lot-of-sense'
>

Altho the Volt dudn't make a lot of sense, it will sell if for nothing else
as a, uh, vehicle for Yupsterized environmental dick-waving....

$45K for an electric motor and a battery, and some silicon.... go
figger.....
iirc, the Volt is no lightweight, either... 3800 lbs..... holy shit....
DAT will drain a battery!!!

I wonder how the Tesla gets 200 mi per charge.... if it's true.

Part of the problem is that assholes (car mfr's and The Merkin Pubic) seem
to have deliberately forgotten that the VW beetle -- and The Bus -- did
just fine with 42 hp -- up from 35 hp.

Funny, too.... my 1970 Datsun 510 got about the same mpgs as an effing
Prius.... go figger....
That manual steering was a bitch, tho -- what a workout to park dat car!
But overall, not a lot of progress in 41 years, eh?
--
EA

== 2 of 25 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 2 2011 1:04 am
From: Bjorn

On 1 mar, 22:01, "hls" <h...@nospam.nix> wrote:
> <t...@mucks.net> wrote in message
>
> news:h9pqm6t4bp7h7j2jhpo89d2p3qqg02bvdu@4ax.com...
>
> > On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 07:47:07 -0500, "C. E. White"
> > <cewhi...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >>Consumer Reports: GM's Volt 'doesn't really make a lot of sense'
>
> >>David Shepardson / Detroit News Washington Bureau
>
> >>Washington - Consumer Reports offered a harsh initial review of the
> >>Chevrolet Volt, questioning whether General Motors Co.'s flagship vehicle
> >>makes economic "sense.
>
> > Since when was the Volt General Motors flagship vehicle?
>
> Their Titanic maybe?

GM hit the iceberg a long time ago and sank last year.

Whatever you call GM now or any of their products they are trying to
get back up again.

If the Volt is what is supposed to safe them they will surely have to
scale down a bit.

== 3 of 25 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 2 2011 1:07 am
From: Bjorn

On 1 mar, 22:00, "hls" <h...@nospam.nix> wrote:
> "dsi1" <d...@usenet-news.net> wrote in message
>
> news:4d6d3e41$0$21966$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net...
>
> > On 3/1/2011 2:47 AM, C. E. White wrote:
> >> Consumer Reports: GM's Volt 'doesn't really make a lot of sense'
>
> > None of these electric vehicles with gas engines make much sense but they
> > are important because they'll lead the way to a fully electric future.
>
> Remember Julius and Ethel Rosenberg...Their future was also
> fully electric.

A man was walking outside the sing sing and heard a lot of screaming.
He went in and asked what was happening.
We are executing a prisoner in an electric chair.
And why all this screaming then?
There is no electricity so we have to use a candle.

== 4 of 25 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 2 2011 3:26 am
From: "J.B. Wood"

On 03/01/2011 05:17 PM, dsi1 wrote:
> On 3/1/2011 11:12 AM, Roger Blake wrote:
>> On 2011-03-01, dsi1<dsi1@usenet-news.net> wrote:
>>> None of these electric vehicles with gas engines make much sense but
>>> they are important because they'll lead the way to a fully electric
>>> future.
>>
>> I have no interest in a "fully electric future" and certainly no interest
>> in purchasing electric or hybrid vehicles. You can keep 'em.
>>
>
> In the scheme of things, our personal opinions don't matter much do they?

Or to quote Major Kira Nerys (Nana Visitor) from an episode of ST DS9:
"It doesn't matter what you say or what you think. All that matters is
what you do." Sincerely,

--
J. B. Wood e-mail: arl_123234@hotmail.com

== 5 of 25 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 2 2011 5:13 am
From: Roger Blake

On 2011-03-01, dsi1 <dsi1@usenet-news.net> wrote:
> In the scheme of things, our personal opinions don't matter much do they?

They do at least in terms of the directions our own lives take. I can
assure you that I will never own an electric or hybrid car. What the
rest of you do is your own business, of course.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled)

"Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental
protection... the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually
an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's
resources will be negotiated." -- Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

== 6 of 25 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 2 2011 5:13 am
From: Roger Blake

On 2011-03-01, dsi1 <dsi1@usenet-news.net> wrote:
> 20 years ago I wouldn't have believed that our future was going to be
> almost totally digital.

Speak for yourself.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled)

== 7 of 25 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 2 2011 5:16 am
From: Roger Blake

On 2011-03-02, dsi1 <dsi1@usenet-news.net> wrote:
> My guess is that 20 years from now, we won't be doing fill-ups at gas
> stations and changing motor oil. I could be wrong but I hope not, for
> our sake.

I can assure you that I will be still doing fillups at gas stations
and changing motor oil in 20 years. The installed base is far too large
to simply go away in that period of time. (You of course may elect
to purchase some stoopid electic pregnant roller skate to run around
if you desire. Just don't try to force me into one.)

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled)

== 8 of 25 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 2 2011 6:01 am
From: "hls"

"Bjorn" <gosinn@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:36c77a67-70e0-43ea-9599-ed1ff2eeb857@d23g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Their Titanic maybe?
>
> GM hit the iceberg a long time ago and sank last year.
>
> Whatever you call GM now or any of their products they are trying to
> get back up again.
>
> If the Volt is what is supposed to safe them they will surely have to
> scale down a bit.

I think that the only thing that will give GM a profit on this line of
"vehicles" is that the Obama administration might force the post
office or other groups to purchase a bunch of them at ridiculous
prices.

This could force this ill begotten project to appear to work, again
at the sacrifice of the tax payers.

== 9 of 25 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 2 2011 6:52 am
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)

dsi1 <dsi1@usenet-news.net> wrote:
>Well I guess it's too late to find out now. The price of computer RAM
>was about $45 a MB so you'd probably have a hard time imagining regular
>folks owing a computer with $200,000 worth of ram and drives which would
>cost about $10,000,000 at the time.

Yup. However, at the time, the exponential growth in computer power had
been pretty well established.

>The only reason we're a digital world is that cheap RAM, data storage,
>and a method of moving info around at high speed exists. Without that,
>we'd probably still be using film, listening to CDs, going to Tower
>Records, and using computers with small sized OSes with limited memory.

The cheap ram and long-term storage was predicted. The cheap CPU was
predicted. They all fell along the same growth curve that had been going
on for some time.

But a lot of the actual applications weren't so easy to predict, and that
is what makes the future fun.

>My guess is that 20 years from now, we won't be doing fill-ups at gas
>stations and changing motor oil. I could be wrong but I hope not, for
>our sake.

I expect to be, and I expect to be driving the same 1974 car that I am
driving today. It should be up around a million miles on the odometer by
then. But then, I'll probably still be using film and listening to CDs
as well, so I am clearly an outlier.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

== 10 of 25 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 2 2011 7:36 am
From: ben91932

Your points are all valid IMHO Vic.
I commute 14 mile to work, which would cost me $1.50ish in electricity
a day and would only need gas every couple of months.
I have a Highlander to use for everything other than my commute.
The Volt makes perfect sense for me, and I am anxious for the price to
come down a bit so I can afford one.
HTH,
Ben
>
> Not when you pay $48,700 and get gas for $3.35.
> When you can buy the car for about $30k and gas is $5.00 then the
> logic changes.
> But reliability is yet to be proved too.
> We'll see.
>
> --Vic

== 11 of 25 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 2 2011 7:37 am
From: Roger Blake

On 2011-03-02, Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
> I expect to be, and I expect to be driving the same 1974 car that I am
> driving today. It should be up around a million miles on the odometer by
> then. But then, I'll probably still be using film and listening to CDs
> as well, so I am clearly an outlier.

Sounds good to me (I drive a 1975 model), though I haven't gone to CDs yet,
still on records and tapes.

Those of us who are old enough to have lived through the first iteration
of this envirowacko rubbish 40 years ago are going to be an extremely tough
sell this time around. (Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice...) I
can look through magazines from the 1970s and it's all the same crap;
windmills, solar panels, alternative fuels, electric cars, etc., etc.
Sorry, I'm not falling for it this time.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled)

== 12 of 25 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 2 2011 7:39 am
From: ben91932

> Since when was the Volt General Motors flagship vehicle?
It may not be their flagship, but they are certainly banking on it as
the future of the company.
That car-of-the-year award didnt hurt them any...
Ben

== 13 of 25 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 2 2011 7:43 am
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)

Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote:
>
>Those of us who are old enough to have lived through the first iteration
>of this envirowacko rubbish 40 years ago are going to be an extremely tough
>sell this time around. (Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice...) I
>can look through magazines from the 1970s and it's all the same crap;
>windmills, solar panels, alternative fuels, electric cars, etc., etc.
>Sorry, I'm not falling for it this time.

I think it was a good idea back in the seventies and much of it is a good
idea today. The stuff we saw in the seventies brought us the more efficient
engines of today.

And yes, the emission controls systems when they first arrived in the
seventies were horrible and sometimes did more harm than good, but they
got better because they had to. I think you'll see the same thing happen
with electric vehicles.

But I also think that the environmental impact of auto manufacturing is in
many cases even more significant than the environmental impact of operating
them. Build a car that lasts twice as long, you halve the effective
impact of production. Unfortunately you also halve your sales....
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

== 14 of 25 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 2 2011 7:57 am
From: Roger Blake

On 2011-03-02, Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
> I think it was a good idea back in the seventies...

It was mostly garbage then and it is mostly garbage now.

> But I also think that the environmental impact of auto manufacturing is in
> many cases even more significant than the environmental impact of operating
> them. Build a car that lasts twice as long, you halve the effective
> impact of production. Unfortunately you also halve your sales....

You can make a car last almost indefinitely if you have a mind to.
I've been driving the same vehicle for over 30 years now and it still
runs just fine. Of course I have long since removed the crude 1970s-era
emissions equipment and tuned the engine for best performance.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled)

== 15 of 25 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 2 2011 10:36 am
From: jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net>

Scott Dorsey wrote:

>
> And yes, the emission controls systems when they first arrived in the
> seventies were horrible and sometimes did more harm than good, but they
> got better because they had to. I think you'll see the same thing happen
> with electric vehicles.
>

The first emission standards were designed to be horrible and
ineffective. The regulations were designed during the Nixon
administration by the oil cos and automakers. The intent of the
regulations from the automakers point of view was to create obstacles
for foreign competition. They did succeed in killing off the VW bug but
for the most part the effort only slowed the competition a bit.
The real problem with new regulations was there are places like LA
where important people live that really couldn't breath unless something
effective was done about car exhaust. The new regulations meant that the
new Cadillac was getting 6 mpg instead of the 13 mpg that the previous
models did. And LA has more than its share of Cadillacs.

It was pretty clear that to make things better the regulations were
going to have to actually work and could not be allowed to be just
another football the politicians and big corporation kicked around,
because the people who make movies were getting pissed off and that
wasn't going to be pretty.

== 16 of 25 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 2 2011 10:57 am
From: "hls"

"ben91932" <benteaches@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f38ee91c-e05f-4b50-8a7e-b517de8d7039@d12g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
> Your points are all valid IMHO Vic.
> I commute 14 mile to work, which would cost me $1.50ish in electricity
> a day and would only need gas every couple of months.
> I have a Highlander to use for everything other than my commute.
> The Volt makes perfect sense for me, and I am anxious for the price to
> come down a bit so I can afford one.
> HTH,
> Ben

If you payed $40K for that car, and amortized it on a straight line for
10 years, it would cost you nearly $11 per day. If you paid the actual
$60+ thousand that the car is reputed to cost GM and the govt, it would
be closer to $15 per day even if you just let it sit idle. Energy costs
would
be additional.

That seems a little expensive for a 14 mile per day commute.

== 17 of 25 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 2 2011 11:00 am
From: "hls"

"ben91932" <benteaches@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3318e6b4-b27a-429e-8657-7b4358ad441c@a11g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>
>> Since when was the Volt General Motors flagship vehicle?
> It may not be their flagship, but they are certainly banking on it as
> the future of the company.
> That car-of-the-year award didnt hurt them any...
> Ben

I really doubt that many people even considered the COTY award as
being significant. And I think the Volt is a smoke and mirrors exercise
to improve GM's public aura.

With the Prius and others already in existence that can do more and
better, I find it rather unimpressive.

== 18 of 25 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 2 2011 12:05 pm
From: Vic Smith

On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 07:36:15 -0800 (PST), ben91932
<benteaches@gmail.com> wrote:

>Your points are all valid IMHO Vic.
>I commute 14 mile to work, which would cost me $1.50ish in electricity
>a day and would only need gas every couple of months.
>I have a Highlander to use for everything other than my commute.
>The Volt makes perfect sense for me, and I am anxious for the price to
>come down a bit so I can afford one.
>HTH,
>Ben
>>

Before I retired my round-trip commute for 35 of 40 years working was
less or equal than the Volt electric range.
Had 2 1/2 years of a 75 mile round trip commute and 2 1/2 years of a
40 mile round trip commute.
But there were also about 7 years of that when I lived in apartments
where I couldn't plug in.
Last 13 years the commute for both me and my wife has been about 12
miles round trip.
I've read the "average" driver in the U.S. drives 32 miles a day.
There's a real big market for the Volt with folks who have 2 cars and
buy new - if the price comes down where it's comparable to an IC and
the current gas price trends continue.
I'll never have a Volt because I don't buy new cars or expensive cars.
All but one of my cars have cost $2500 or less.
But if it was in my nature to spend bucks on cars, I'd love to have a
Volt and see how long I could avoid the gas station with it.
Of course it's still not proven.
CR was absolutely no help in that regard.
The Volt and other electric cars kind of remind me of the history of
successful technology like radios, TV's, color TV's, PC's, cell phones
and cars themselves.
Always people with the money to buy them and make the technology
"happen" enough where the average Joe can afford one.
Except for the early PC I've been a "late adopter."
This is another innovation I'll sit out. Since I'm a bit long in the
tooth doubt I'll ever have an electric.
But since I'm always interested in cars, I find the Volt to be a
pretty exciting development.
Don't recall anything close to it with the potential of being a real
automotive game-changer.

--Vic

== 19 of 25 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 2 2011 1:02 pm
From: dsi1

On 3/2/2011 3:13 AM, Roger Blake wrote:
> On 2011-03-01, dsi1<dsi1@usenet-news.net> wrote:
>> In the scheme of things, our personal opinions don't matter much do they?
>
> They do at least in terms of the directions our own lives take. I can
> assure you that I will never own an electric or hybrid car. What the
> rest of you do is your own business, of course.
>

Is there any reason that you think that the electric car is a bad idea?

== 20 of 25 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 2 2011 1:04 pm
From: dsi1

On 3/2/2011 3:13 AM, Roger Blake wrote:
> On 2011-03-01, dsi1<dsi1@usenet-news.net> wrote:
>> 20 years ago I wouldn't have believed that our future was going to be
>> almost totally digital.
>
> Speak for yourself.
>

I thought it would have been obvious that I was.

== 21 of 25 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 2 2011 1:09 pm
From: Roger Blake

On 2011-03-02, dsi1 <dsi1@usenet-news.net> wrote:
> I thought it would have been obvious that I was.

You said "our future."

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled)

== 22 of 25 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 2 2011 1:11 pm
From: dsi1

On 3/2/2011 3:16 AM, Roger Blake wrote:
> On 2011-03-02, dsi1<dsi1@usenet-news.net> wrote:
>> My guess is that 20 years from now, we won't be doing fill-ups at gas
>> stations and changing motor oil. I could be wrong but I hope not, for
>> our sake.
>
> I can assure you that I will be still doing fillups at gas stations
> and changing motor oil in 20 years. The installed base is far too large
> to simply go away in that period of time. (You of course may elect
> to purchase some stoopid electic pregnant roller skate to run around
> if you desire. Just don't try to force me into one.)
>

For a guy that claims to be such a forward thinker, you seem to be stuck
on this technology based on the steam engine.

There were guys like you that thought the automobile would never catch
on but my guess is that the 20 years from the introduction of the Model
T to the 1930s pretty much changed the entire nation. Of course, back
then, the naysayers had a more legs to their argument - there were few
roads and hardly any place to get gas.

== 23 of 25 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 2 2011 1:10 pm
From: Roger Blake

On 2011-03-02, dsi1 <dsi1@usenet-news.net> wrote:
> Is there any reason that you think that the electric car is a bad idea?

I see no reason for them.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled)

== 24 of 25 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 2 2011 1:16 pm
From: Roger Blake

On 2011-03-02, dsi1 <dsi1@usenet-news.net> wrote:
> For a guy that claims to be such a forward thinker, you seem to be stuck
> on this technology based on the steam engine.

I see no reason to change it.

> There were guys like you that thought the automobile would never catch
> on but my guess is that the 20 years from the introduction of the Model

There were guys like you 40 years ago that though we would be out of oil
in 20 years.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled)

== 25 of 25 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 2 2011 1:16 pm
From: dsi1

On 3/2/2011 4:52 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> dsi1<dsi1@usenet-news.net> wrote:
>> Well I guess it's too late to find out now. The price of computer RAM
>> was about $45 a MB so you'd probably have a hard time imagining regular
>> folks owing a computer with $200,000 worth of ram and drives which would
>> cost about $10,000,000 at the time.
>
> Yup. However, at the time, the exponential growth in computer power had
> been pretty well established.
>
>> The only reason we're a digital world is that cheap RAM, data storage,
>> and a method of moving info around at high speed exists. Without that,
>> we'd probably still be using film, listening to CDs, going to Tower
>> Records, and using computers with small sized OSes with limited memory.
>
> The cheap ram and long-term storage was predicted. The cheap CPU was
> predicted. They all fell along the same growth curve that had been going
> on for some time.
>
> But a lot of the actual applications weren't so easy to predict, and that
> is what makes the future fun.
>
>> My guess is that 20 years from now, we won't be doing fill-ups at gas
>> stations and changing motor oil. I could be wrong but I hope not, for
>> our sake.
>
> I expect to be, and I expect to be driving the same 1974 car that I am
> driving today. It should be up around a million miles on the odometer by
> then. But then, I'll probably still be using film and listening to CDs
> as well, so I am clearly an outlier.
> --scott
>

Us folks interested in such things were aware of the drop in RAM and
storage space prices as well as the growth of processing power. Still,
I'm stunned at all that has happened. I never really thought about what
kind of impact all this would have on society. Who does?

==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "alt.autos"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to alt.autos+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en

Auto Mobiles Updates

Wednesday, March 2, 2011

alt.autos - 25 new messages in 1 topic - digest

No comments:

Post a Comment

Followers

Blog Archive