melbatoast
'blog archives

2009                        2008
01 | 02 | 03 | 04        01 | 02 | 03 | 04
05 | 06 | 07 | 08        05 | 06 | 07 | 08
09 | 10 | 11 | 12        09 | 10 | 11 | 12

2007                        2006
01 | 02 | 03 | 04        01 | 02 | 03 | 04
05 | 06 | 07 | 08        05 | 06 | 07 | 08
09 | 10 | 11 | 12        09 | 10 | 11 | 12

2005                        2004
01 | 02 | 03 | 04        01 | 02 | 03 | 04
05 | 06 | 07 | 08        05 | 06 | 07 | 08
09 | 10 | 11 | 12        09 | 10 | 11 | 12

2003                        2002
01 | 02 | 03 | 04        01 | 02 | 03 | 04
05 | 06 | 07 | 08        05 | 06 | 07 | 08
 09 | 10 | 11 | 12        09 | 10 | 11 | 12

Tech Modules and
Web Functionality

Clustrmaps.com: Monthly Hits

Google Reader

Twitter

Last.fm

peregrinations: a blog

Thursday, July 08, 2004 I don't do this very often, but felt that after my recent post about comparative mileages of various Ford vehicles, I should at least acknowledge an article pointed out by astute New Medievalism reader Ian Gould about Ford's terrible report card in terms of overall petrol consumption. From The Environmental News Network: "...[A] broken promise Americans heard when [Ford] pledged in 2000 to improve its SUV fuel efficiency 25 percent by 2005. Ford can't escape its abysmal fleet-wide EPA ranking by producing a few thousand token hybrid SUVs and one green roof." More in link. posted by Benjamin Russell at 5:48 PM :: (0) comments