Stupid Unnecessary Vehicles
Orlando Fernandez
Some valid concerns, but some major flaws...
To begin with, SUVs are up to 16 times more deadly to other vehicles in
accidents, which makes it an issue for most other vehicles on the road
AND pushes up the size war not to be on the losing end. In other words,
EVERYBODY loses: the owner who overpays for the vehicle and the gas; the
others, who are at a much greater risk to die; and the whole world who's
being choked up in its exhaust...
Some further comments:
(names precede the arguments)
nospam.lcb...@nopsam.starband.nospam.net (LCB)
For those bikers who rant against SUVs all the time; you may want to
consider that we are in the minority and that the majority thinks our
bikes are the stupid, and unnecessary vehicles that should be outlawed.
Orlando-
Right, like I recently was from an stupid apartment complex because my
bike was a eye sore...
LCB-
As far as I am concerned, anybody can drive/ride/fly/etc. anything they
want, regardless of size/etc. as long as they do not endanger me and/or
infringe on my rights while doing it.
Orlando-
But they do...
LCB-
BTW, SUVs pollute much less than most bikes (unless you ride one of the
very few bikes that has a catalytic converter - I
Orlando-
So? Put 'em on! We don't wanna be polluting pigs either...
LCB-
don't) and on passenger per mile basis gets better fuel mileage than
most bikes; a soccer mom hauling half a dozen kids in a Ford Explorer
(with third seat for 7 passenger capacity) hauls those kids 20 miles
(ten miles each way) to and from a soccer game for the cost of 1.4
gallons of gas. Doing the same thing on my Suzuki 350 which gets 50 MPG
would require 22 trips to get each of those 6 kids there and back and
would consume 4.4 gallons of gas. In my Toyota Tercel which gets 32 MPG
in town, it would require 8 trips, and would consume 2.5 gallons of gas.
Try the same exercise with multiple vehicles - 6 motorcycles - it still
works out that the motorcycles use more fuel, and they certainly pollute
more. With two Toyota Tercels it works out very slightly in the favor of
the smaller car, but not pollution wise.
Orlando-
Most passenger-efficient vehicles are banned from the US market. For
example, the tiny but roomy Japanese micro vans that you find around the
world and Europe, are somehow not available in the US market...
LCB-
My point being, it is not the vehicle that counts, but its usage. Big
metro transit buses get horrendous fuel mileage, and they are not slight
polluters either, but they make up for it by volume. Before someone
points out that they see SUVs with single drivers all the time, I will
admit that yeah, that is how we often see them. But this is anecdotal
evidence; we don't know that these soccer mom & dads are going to pick
up their kids and transport
them around.
Orlando-
The most efficient means of transportation are the bicycle and public
transportation, in which we both rate at the bottom of the civilized
world...
LCB-
Even if we admit that they aren't transporting multiple passengers most
of the time - then the premise is that these people are wasting fuel
right? Yesterday I wasted about 3 gallons of fuel on my bike when I went
out for a ride in the countryside. I didn't need to do that (except to
maintain my sanity) - I wasn't really going anywhere necessary, I wasn't
going to get groceries, I wasn't going to or from work, I wasn't going
to take someone somewhere - I was just riding around in the countryside
consuming fuel and polluting for no good reason other than I felt like
it. In that sense, my BMW R100GS is an SUV - whether that makes it a
Stupid Unnecessary Vehicle or a Sport Utility Vehicle depends totally on
your viewpoint.
Orlando-
Maybe we can't be totally clean, but at least be more in line with
Europe in Japan. Pump up the price of gas and you'll see miracles
happen... Iceland is going totally green while we talk, but all we do
struggle to keep this 19th Century Capitalism (Perot's word's). Of
course we won't change, but nevertheless we'll see why the dinosaurs
went extinct...
LCB-
Try to keep that in mind next time you go on a rant about SUVs - you are
probably engaging in an exercise of the pot calling the kettle black.
Orlando-
No wonder it can explode any minute...
"What worries me is not the violence of the few, but the indifference of
the many"
"Lo que a mi me preocupa no es la violencia de unos pocos, sino la
indiferencia de los muchos"
M.L. King Jr.
http://www.webspawner.com/users/donquijote/index.html
http://www.webspawner.com/users/donquijote1/index.html
http://www.webspawner.com/users/donquijote2/index.html
http://www.webspawner.com/users/donquijote3/index.html
http://www.webspawner.com/users/donquijote4/index.html
http://www.webspawner.com/users/donquijote5/index.html
http://www.webspawner.com/users/donquijote6/index.html
http://www.webspawner.com/users/donquijote7/index.html
http://www.webspawner.com/users/donquijote8/index.html
ralph
this is what the rest of the world thinks about the americans period
as
far polution/etc/etc/etc/etc/
bontragerrider
when station wagons stopped being made. People want them for more than just
style, they're also utilitarian.
You can haul people and things in an SUV where you'd need another vehicle
(re: truck or van) to accomplish the same thing, possibly with multiple
trips.
Rather than deny people what they want, how about requiring better fuel
efficency standards for these vehicles.
Mike Farkas
"Orlando Fernandez" <OFern...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:10619-3D...@storefull-2256.public.lawson.webtv.net...
Jello
truly amazing. While walking my son to school in the morning (a whole 10
blocks(!) God help us) I observe the common sight of one parent driving
there 1.5 kids to school, lined up for almost a block, in order to drop
their precious cargo off right at the front door of the school, in vehicles
originally meant to take construction people out into the mud and the worst
possible elements. I don't deny people the right to do whatever they want,
no matter how preposterous, and rather than getting mad I can hardly keep
from busting out laughing. Is this how people really want to live? Ok here
I am, Mr. Corny, but I get to talk to my son while walking, we get to
observe the things going on, and all the while I'm not getting irritated
because someone cut me off or ran the stoplight again. I feel sorry for the
people rushing to get to their high paying jobs in order to make enough
money to buy the largest 4X4 monsters that is obvious they can't maneuver
worth a darn, cost to much to operate, and really are quite inconvenient
(the other amusing sight-giant SUV stuffed into a garage that must be quite
difficult to exit and enter from). And I laugh when I hear that parents
with all 1.5 of their kids can't manage without an SUV. I am left wondering
how my parents managed with 3 kids and a Corvair (of course we walked to
school too). By golly, I think a Camry or Accord can hold safely 3 kids in
the back seat, certainly a Honda van will. And lets be sure we insist on
scaring our kids out of their minds about being kidnapped and deprive them
of the simple pleasures. Instead we will over organize every moment of
their lives with whatever sport we decide we have to put them in, that will
require driving them across town and complete the illusion that the only
vehicle solution is having a giant SUV! Oh yes, lets not forget to have a
stylish SUV too so when we drive it to the gym in order to work out everyone
will be impressed. This is really too all too funny. Anyone remember good
taste? My how I rambled, please excuse me.
PS I guess people in the past never had to haul people or things?!
Jello
"bontragerrider" <bontrag...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Qnbe9.484758$2p2.19...@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
James Alrad
<bontrag...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Sorry to say, but the SUV is popular because it filled a need that was lost
>when station wagons stopped being made. People want them for more than just
>style, they're also utilitarian.
In a very inefficient, ill handling, dangerous sort of a way.
>You can haul people and things in an SUV where you'd need another vehicle
>(re: truck or van) to accomplish the same thing, possibly with multiple
>trips.
Actually that would be a van. Vans have less weight, a lower center of
gravity, and are much more space efficient. SUVs only real appeal is a
mass hysteria to keep up with the other idiots.
F. Golightly
"ralph" <cgu...@av.eastlink.ca>
F. Golightly
frames!
fwiw
"bontragerrider" <bontrag...@yahoo.com>
Bill
"bontragerrider" <bontrag...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Qnbe9.484758$2p2.19...@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
lost
> when station wagons stopped being made. People want them for more than
just
> style, they're also utilitarian.
>
> You can haul people and things in an SUV where you'd need another vehicle
> (re: truck or van) to accomplish the same thing, possibly with multiple
> trips.
>
> Rather than deny people what they want, how about requiring better fuel
> efficency standards for these vehicles.
>
> Mike Farkas
You gotta love those SUV, I do mine!
Bill
Patrick Lamb
>
> Sorry to say, but the SUV is popular because it filled a need that was lost
> when station wagons stopped being made. People want them for more than just
> style, they're also utilitarian.
>
> You can haul people and things in an SUV where you'd need another vehicle
> (re: truck or van) to accomplish the same thing, possibly with multiple
> trips.
Wonder what SUV you're discussing. Most of the Cherokees, Explorers,
etc. that I've seen carry four adults comfortably, like your
run-of-the-mill sedan, and have less cargo room than a decently sized
sedan trunk.
Minivans have replaced station wagons. (Without the cargo capacity or
comfort of the older station wagons, alas.)
Pat
--
Apologies to those easily confused. Address is spam-resistant.
Correct email address like pdlamb 'round-about comcast point net.
Dave Slavik
"Bill" <Bi...@home.com> wrote in message
news:wIde9.382998$UU1.60878@sccrnsc03...
Right now my car is an MUV (Mostly Unused Vehicle).
I start it once every month or so, and when I actually move it, there is
that nice "squick-thunk" as everything that fused to the rotors and the
ground gives way.
In a way it bothers me, as when I first bought the car, I told myself I
would maintain it rigorously, care for it, wash it, etc etc.
Now here it sits, quietly developing little rust dimples at the whim of
pacific ocean spray.
Really need to buy a car cover. Still would feel bad, like I had abandoned a
friend or something.
Anthropomorphism is a big problem with me, apparently.
When I DO drive it though, I make sure to give it hell, make up for the lack
of activity in a short space of time.
Howard
wrote:
Maybe the parties in this debate should define what they mean by an
"SUV". I owned a GMC Gimmy for a while. Great mileage. Held what I
wanted, including 8 passengers if configured right. Definitely not a
danger to other vehicles. Yet it was still considered an SUV. While
it is pretty obvious to me that we are referring to things like
Suburbans and such, we shouldn't badmouth all SUV's because of
some : P
._O_. . Howard
/ \o/_\ . '95 Suzuki Savage
/H\ .
(=O=). No matter what bike you
U. ride, its all the same wind.
Bill
"Jello" <dp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:albjqn$2a$1...@news.cc.ukans.edu...
> The bizarre sheep like mentality that we tend towards in this county (US)
is
> truly amazing.
It's primate behavior and perfectly natural for our species.
>While walking my son to school in the morning (a whole 10
> blocks(!)
Why does he need you to walk with him, most kids are quite capable of
walking to school by themselves.
>God help us) Which one?
I observe the common sight of one parent driving
> there 1.5 kids to school, lined up for almost a block, in order to drop
> their precious cargo off right at the front door of the school, in
vehicles
> originally meant to take construction people out into the mud and the
worst
> possible elements.
Jealousy is a terrible thing.
> I don't deny people the right to do whatever they want,
> no matter how preposterous,
Sure you do, you would love to be able to restrict people from driving their
kids to school in their SUV's.
>and rather than getting mad I can hardly keep
> from busting out laughing.
Why restrain yourself? It's a free country, laugh if you want to.
> Is this how people really want to live?
Probably but then again what is it to you how people treat their children as
long as they are being treated well?
> Ok here
Sentimental BS snipped!
SNIP
> I feel sorry for the
> people rushing to get to their high paying jobs in order to make enough
> money to buy the largest 4X4 monsters that is obvious they can't maneuver
> worth a darn, cost to much to operate, and really are quite inconvenient
> (the other amusing sight-giant SUV stuffed into a garage that must be
quite
> difficult to exit and enter from).
Your jealousy is getting the best of you, you are indeed a sad, sad person.
> And I laugh when I hear that parents
> with all 1.5 of their kids can't manage without an SUV.
Laughing is good, unless you are doing it for spite.
> I am left wondering
> how my parents managed with 3 kids and a Corvair (of course we walked to
> school too).
Are you sure that they "managed", they appear to have a babbling idiot for a
son! <G>
> By golly, I think a Camry or Accord can hold safely 3 kids in
> the back seat, certainly a Honda van will.
Jealousy is a terrible thing.
> And lets be sure we insist on
> scaring our kids out of their minds about being kidnapped and deprive them
> of the simple pleasures.
You mean like you do to your son?
Instead we will over organize every moment of
> their lives with whatever sport we decide we have to put them in, that
will
> require driving them across town and complete the illusion that the only
> vehicle solution is having a giant SUV!
What do you do for your son, give him barbies?
> Oh yes, lets not forget to have a
> stylish SUV too so when we drive it to the gym in order to work out
everyone
> will be impressed.
Your jealousy is showing again.
> This is really too all too funny.
hahaha
> Anyone remember good
> taste?
You apparently don't.
> My how I rambled, please excuse me.
No. You babbled.
> PS I guess people in the past never had to haul people or things?!
A lot of them had to haul ass!
Bill
one of the six billion
boon to our species and planet.
"Bill" <Bi...@home.com> wrote in message
news:B5ee9.327706$me6.38820@sccrnsc01...
Jello
I looked up jealousy just to be sure there wasn't an other meaning that I
was missing, and sure enough there isn't. Are you a native English speaker?
> Sure you do, you would love to be able to restrict people from driving
their
> kids to school in their SUV's.
Funny, being libertarian restricting people isn't my thing, Are you
insecure about someone questioning the sanity of overbuying what one needs.
It is base more on cost effectiveness of the tool of choice. I suppose if
you have to dig a small hole in your yard you would buy a backhoe too? Buy
what you like but there is nothing saying someone can't get a big chuckle
out of it.
> Probably but then again what is it to you how people treat their children
as
> long as they are being treated well?
Oh yes, dumping the kids off at the daycare and then buying them off with
things is really taking good care of them. Guess that explains the level of
discontent today in our culture.
> Your jealousy is getting the best of you, you are indeed a sad, sad
person.
Again, I'm not sure if you are not an native english speaker and therefore
having a problem finding the correct word.
> Are you sure that they "managed", they appear to have a babbling idiot
for a
> son!
Gosh, you got me there.
> > And lets be sure we insist on
> > scaring our kids out of their minds about being kidnapped and deprive
them
> > of the simple pleasures.
>
> You mean like you do to your son?
Having a hard time following your logic. Probably because I am a babbling
idiot as you wisely discovered above.
> What do you do for your son, give him barbies?
Still having a problem with the logic.
And the reason I walk with him--busy streets full of people who would easily
run him down while racing to work in their monster vehicles. Wish I was
exaggerating about that.
Dane Jackson
> bontragerrider wrote:
> Minivans have replaced station wagons. (Without the cargo capacity or
> comfort of the older station wagons, alas.)
Actually, the average mini-van has equivalent or slightly better
cargo space than an average SUV. And they get better gas mileage. And
they're cheaper. But they're not stylish I suppose. Oh well, I can't
stand to drive anything larger than a sedan personally.
--
Dane Jackson - z u v e m b i @ u n i x b i g o t s . o r g
Thus spake the master programmer:
"When you have learned to snatch the error code from
the trap frame, it will be time for you to leave."
-- Geoffrey James, "The Tao of Programming"
Orlando Fernandez
nos...@hotmail.com (James Alrad)
gravity, and are much more space efficient. SUVs only real appeal is a
mass hysteria to keep up with the other idiots.
Orlando-
And to be "safe?" from the chaotic American roads... which tends to
worsen the chaos...
Orlando Fernandez
Bi...@home.com (Bill)
(The bizarre sheep like mentality that we tend towards in this county
(US) is truly amazing. )
It's primate behavior and perfectly natural for our species.
Orlando-
I always knew some of us never shook off the primate mentality...
Orlando Fernandez
dp...@yahoo.com (Jello)
Orlando-
Why walk if you got a gym across town that's only a drive away!!!
Well, guys, you got burn the calories!
In light of the recent suit against the fast food giants in the USA, for
making people fat and sick, on the one hand, and the proliferation of
highly-processed, low-fat products, on the other, I would respond: "You
gotta burn the calories!!!" How? Well, I leave it to your imagination...
But, as the following opinion shows, is doesn't seem to be an easy task
in the USA...
Source: Talking Point, BBC News
Having lived in the US last year, I can say most of the comments here
belittling this lawsuit stem from ignorance of life in the US. People
here in the UK are MUCH more aware of what is healthy. In the US "Big
Food" dominates the airwaves and the vast majority of people are
genuinely misinformed. Americans live off processed food regularly now.
Having said that, I think the lawsuit is partially misguided because bad
food is no more than half the problem of obesity that is now coming to
the fore in the US. The other half is the lifestyle the country imposes
on people. In the US you are literally FORCED to drive everywhere - even
a 5 minute hop to a local supermarket. People live in a system where
they do everything sitting down. So it is not just that massive amounts
of calories (with little nutrition) are readily and cheaply on offer,
but that burning any of it off in the normal course of a day is near
impossible. James, UK
B a r r y B u r k e J r .
>
> Sorry to say, but the SUV is popular because it filled a need that was lost
> when station wagons stopped being made. People want them for more than just
> style, they're also utilitarian.
>
My Subaru Outback, which is actually a Subaru Legacy station wagon with
larger wheels, has as much or more interior room than many SUVs.
Station wagons are still made by Subaru, Ford, Chevy, Buick, Toyota,
Honda, Volvo, Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Audi, Volkswagen, etc... <G>
Need more room? What about the minivan? Since 2WD SUVs outsell 4WD
SUVs I tend to believe it's a style thing.
Barry
--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Please remove the asterisks to reply directly
==============================================
Insert lame quote of your choice here
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Biff Hitler
"bontragerrider" <bontrag...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Qnbe9.484758$2p2.19...@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
>
> efficency standards for these vehicles.
>
Because denying people what they want is exactly what the Left is about.
They don't give a rabid rat's ass about safety or the environment.
Cam Penner
> bontragerrider wrote:
> >
> > Sorry to say, but the SUV is popular because it filled a need that was lost
> > when station wagons stopped being made. People want them for more than just
> > style, they're also utilitarian.
> >
>
> My Subaru Outback, which is actually a Subaru Legacy station wagon with
> larger wheels, has as much or more interior room than many SUVs.
Ahh. The confusing Subaru Outback name. Don't you love it when
manufacturers use the same name for both a trim level and a model line?
You can get an Impreza Outback Sport, a Legacy Outback, or an Outback -
which is bigger than both the Impreza and the Legacy. Had me scratching
my head for a while whilst shopping. "Have you seen the new Outback
yet?....."
--
Cam
'89 RZ 350
'02 Impreza RS
XS11E
> I observe the common sight of one parent driving their 1.5 kids to school
I have some difficulty with the concept of 1.5 kids. It's pretty easy to
visualize the .5 kid, but how is .5 kid conceived? A condom with a very
small leak? A wet dream that splashed? Exactly how is this done?
Expiring minds wanna know!
XS11E
news:dzfe9.915$ds4.53...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:
> There goes Mr. Bill, intelligent, thought provoking, sensitive,
> caring. A boon to our species and planet.
Yeah and he knows better than to top post and he also knows how to trim his
posts! Let's hear it for Mr. Bill!
Orlando Fernandez
biff...@example.net (Biff Hitler)
They don't give a rabid rat's ass about safety or the environment.
Orlando-
Heil Hitler!!!
bi...@pippinf.com
wrote:
>On Sat, 07 Sep 2002 00:04:00 GMT, "bontragerrider"
You state this with some authority.
How do you know this?
bi...@pippinf.com
>Don't you wish there were more choices for wagons? I hate those truck
>frames!
There ar emany SUVs on car platforms.
Joshua Hirschel
biff...@example.net (Biff Hitler)
Because denying people what they want is exactly what the Left is about.
They don't give a rabid rat's ass about safety or the environment.
Orlando-
Heil Hitler!!!
*snip*
I'm new to the NG, but both of these comments are absolutely asinine.
Denying people what they want is what "the Left" is all about? Most liberal
issues, even by their critics' standards, are about providing services the
free market is unable/unwilling to provide (e.g. health care, prescription
drug benefit subsidies, etc.). And not caring about safety or environment?
Current gasoline prices do not reflect the true cost when you factor in
pollution and the associated health benefits. For comparison, you'd do well
to compare petrol prices in the US and the UK.
As for Orlando, who are you to compare the above person to Hitler? Aren't we
just grasping at straws a bit too much here? Or are you indeed that twisted
to think there's a link between someone who criticizes the liberals in
America with Hitler?
/Josh
Jello
in the middle east and the billions of dollars we give to the middle east
countries who would not matter a darn if we didn't need to keep our oil fix
going. Keep driving those gas hogs, just don't be surprised if they come to
draft your kids for war over oil. Oh but will the babyboomers be sure that
the poor are left to fight the next war too?
"Joshua Hirschel" <jhir...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:BCue9.16805$jG2.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
James Alrad
Look it up! DUH!
James Alrad
But they are still jacked up to get the useless 4WD hardware
underneath.
R.White
What country are you from where they have stopped making station
wagons?
Michael Young
news:27bc6c79.02090...@posting.google.com...
That would be the US. The Taurus wagon was the last viable market presence,
and they stopped making those long ago.
Does anyone else see a strong resemblance that can't be hidden between
mini-vans and SUV's? Perfume on a sow, I say. Call them mini-vans for soccer
moms in denial.
B a r r y B u r k e J r .
>
> >
> > My Subaru Outback, which is actually a Subaru Legacy station wagon with
> > larger wheels, has as much or more interior room than many SUVs.
>
> Ahh. The confusing Subaru Outback name. Don't you love it when
> manufacturers use the same name for both a trim level and a model line?
Yeah, isn't that great! <G>
Especially when dealers advertise "Outbacks" at $17,900 (the Sport), and
my father-in-law goes there looking for a car like my Outback (the
Legacy), only to be extremely disappointed.
James Alrad
<mik...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>"R.White" <bic...@charter.net> wrote in message
>news:27bc6c79.02090...@posting.google.com...
>> "bontragerrider" <bontrag...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:<Qnbe9.484758$2p2.19...@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>...
>> > Sorry to say, but the SUV is popular because it filled a need that was
>lost
>> > when station wagons stopped being made. <snip>
>>
>> What country are you from where they have stopped making station
>> wagons?
>
>That would be the US. The Taurus wagon was the last viable market presence,
>and they stopped making those long ago.
The Taurus wagon is still being made? At last count there was around a
dozen wagons available here?
Biff Hitler
> Does anyone else see a strong resemblance that can't be hidden between
> mini-vans and SUV's? Perfume on a sow, I say. Call them mini-vans for
soccer
> moms in denial.
Yes. Mini-vans are PC SUVs. Soccer Moms vote Democrat, you know, so it's
hands off. SUV drivers are evil. Mini-van drivers are statistically
predominantly liberal, so they're not.
James Alrad
Nice try but you totally misunderstood his post.
Matt J
> mini-vans and SUV's? Perfume on a sow, I say. Call them mini-vans for soccer
> moms in denial.
I'm loving this thread. It's not the older GMC Jimmy's and whatnot
that we hate - people actually used those for what they were designed
for. But now they have these Lincoln and Lexus SUV's, with leather
interiors and 2WD... Come on guys! They guzzle gas, roll over easily,
and don't even handle well in the snow. We have a 1991 Toyota Previa
- a minivan with 4WD. While shopping for a new car, there was only
one minivan with 4WD - the most expensive one out there. What's up
with that? We spend time in Michigan in the winter where the roads
aren't plowed and the 4WD helps a lot - but you have to get one of
these nonsense leather-interiored luxury SUV's to get 4WD these days.
I really don't see the other advantages, other than snob appeal. I
mean, minivans hold just as much if not more cargo, and just as much
if not more people also!! Ugh SUV's... what a waste of time. SOrry,
I'm rambling too now. Cheers!
Matt
Marc
you that it does not need to be jacked up. You lose a little of the
trunk, but the AWD in the Eclipse or Subarus still allows for a low
stance with systems not significantly different from many car-based
SUVs.
They are jacked up to hide their car roots, and nothing more.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
Guy Chapman
Bontragerrider wrote:
Much has already been said on this, but:
> You can haul people and things in an SUV where you'd need another vehicle
> (re: truck or van) to accomplish the same thing, possibly with multiple
> trips.
I have a Volvo 940 estate (wagon) in which I have transported a child's
climbing frame, the largest section of which was 10'6" x 18" x 4" - it fitted
in with the tailgate closed.
Most of the time, though, drivers of SUVs are transporting nothing larger
than their own egos.
> Rather than deny people what they want, how about requiring better fuel
> efficency standards for these vehicles.
Hmmm. Did they want it? Did they go to the manufacturers and say "we really
want something which has the poor fuel economy and handling of a truck, but
with less load-carrying ability and two-wheel drive so it's crap in the
snow?" Or did the manufacturers spot a tax loophole and exploit it to make
money from the poor sheep who believe the advertising hype?
Guy
===
Riding every day on a road near you (provided you live near Reading,
England).
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony.
http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and dynamic DNS permitting)
Above email a spam-sink. Remove maker of Spam from
bikeHO...@chapmanFOODScentral.com
Daniel J. Stern
> > Rather than deny people what they want, how about requiring better fuel
> > efficency standards for these vehicles.
> Hmmm. Did they want it? Did they go to the manufacturers and say "we
> really want something which has the poor fuel economy and handling of
> a truck, but with less load-carrying ability and two-wheel drive so
> it's crap in the snow?"
Nope, not quite. What actually happened was they went to the manufacturers
and said "Hey...how come I can't buy a direct replacement for my Caprice
Estate? My Monaco? My Colony Park? My Country Squire? My Town and
Country?"
And the automakers said "Sorry, but shortsighted self-professed
environmentalists bitched and screamed until they got CAFE passed. CAFE
constitutes tampering with market forces, and you now see the results. We
know most of you were perfectly happy with your 21-mpg-on-the-highway
Caprice Estates, but we can't make 'em any more. Yes, we *know* America is
a great big land with great big spaces and lots of great big distance
between those great big spaces. Yes, we *know* most of you'd be perfectly
happy with another Caprice...and you should see the one we sell in
Australia. It holds everything your '78 did, more actually. It gets over
29mpg on the highway because of advances in technology. Handling? Your old
Caprice *WISHES* it handled like this! Gasoline's more expensive down
there, which means people really have to think about what they need and
what they want in transportation, but there are no byzantine and
artificial market controls, so SUVs comprise basically the same tiny
fraction of the on-road fleet as they did in America before CAFE. We're
sorry, we know you want one, and we'd really like to provide you with what
you want, but we *can't*. It's a result of the law of unintended
consequences. Can we interest you in an Excursion instead?"
You really can't blame the automakers for this one. They're in business to
make money, after all. When big cars got effectively legislated off the
roads, America was no smaller, the distances no shorter. Americans still
wanted big vehicles. No more big cars? Bring-on the trucks! What a
screamin' deal, you can enclose the back of a pickup truck and throw in
some carpets, glass and seats and a few sets of seatbelts, and people will
fall over themselves to buy-buy-buy.
The shortsighted "environmentalists" who demanded CAFE got exactly what
they wanted...and now they, together with all the rest of us, must live
with the results. This is a bitter, bitter pill for many of them to
swallow, so they tend to try to shift the blame to consumers, to
automakers, to the oil companies, to Republicans...to anyone but where it
belongs, squarely on the shoulders of their forebears.
DS, sitting back and waiting for the starry-eyeds to respond with
invective against all vehicles bigger than a Honda Insight, or any
vehicles at all, for that matter...
Mike...@mailcity.com
mike
Mike...@mailcity.com
that are RWD truck based.
mike
XS11E
> I thought Outback was a steak house?
It is and a very successful one, there are long waiting lines to get in and
eat really bad overpriced food!
Mike...@mailcity.com
than some SUV's, roll over just as easily as they say the SUV's
roll over? Especially those short wheel base and narrow track
import mini vans. Is one with leather interiors more likely to
roll over than one with a cloth interior? How come an SUV is
more likely to roll over than those built on the pickup or the
car chassis on which the SUV is built?
mike
Guy Chapman
> Nope, not quite. What actually happened was they went to the manufacturers
> and said "Hey...how come I can't buy a direct replacement for my Caprice
> Estate? My Monaco? My Colony Park? My Country Squire? My Town and
> Country?"
And the manufacturers said "Here, have this minivan" and the guy said "but
then the chicks will know I'm married and I won't get any action." So the
salesman pointed out that he was so fat he would probably die of a heart
attack if he did get any action, and the guy wandered off - the lost sale
report hit the desk of a GM executive and the rest is history.
> And the automakers said "Sorry, but shortsighted self-professed
> environmentalists bitched and screamed until they got CAFE passed.
And sadly only Ford, GM, Saab, Volvo, Mercedes, VW/Audi and a hundred other
makers were able to produce wagons and vans which passed the new standard,
none of which used nearly enough fuel to satisfy Mr Petrolhead, even if
drivers throughout the rest of the world managed to get by with them. Mr
Petrolhead, after all, is deeply concerned that the US oil deficit might
shrink, and wants to do his best to prevent this danger.
WTF can you carry every day which fits in an Excursion but won't go in a
V70?
> You really can't blame the automakers for this one. They're in business to
> make money, after all.
No, I blame the legislators for botching the law and the automakers for
exploiting it in the most cynical way possible, so shared blame.
> When big cars got effectively legislated off the
> roads, America was no smaller, the distances no shorter.
Oh, please! This is the worst possible reason for driving an SUV! Have you
any idea how much more comfortable a good-quality modern wagon is than a
ladder-framed SUV? Of course, I've never driven more than 500 miles round
trip to do a day's work, but the cars in which I have done this (in comfort)
have all returned more than double the mpg that any SUV ever could.
I have had to carry large loads on and off for years - six complete computer
systems with 17" screens, two laser printers, four boxes of cables, video
projectors, that kind of thing - all went in the back of my Volvo 940 wagon.
Still gets 50% better gas mileage than a state-of-the-art SUV, and handles
better. As does a boat.
Guy
===
Now available in both wedgie and bent flavours!
Daniel J. Stern
> And sadly only Ford, GM, Saab, Volvo, Mercedes, VW/Audi and a hundred other
> makers were able to produce wagons and vans which passed the new standard,
> none of which used nearly enough fuel to satisfy Mr Petrolhead, even if
> drivers throughout the rest of the world managed to get by with them.
It's easy for you to criticise, living in the UK, the whole of which would
fit in one of the smaller American states. Fact is, the US is not the rest
of the world. It's silly to pretend there is a one-size-fits-all solution
to everyone's transportation needs and wants the world over.
> WTF can you carry every day which fits in an Excursion but won't go in a
> V70?
Donno, I don't own either vehicle. I do have plenty of friends who own
S/V70s, however, and they're hardly economical to own. Volvo no longer
builds cars with the durability, reliability and low upkeep cost of the
140s, 240s and 740s that made Volvo famous. Parts and service costs are
hideous on FWD Volvos, and at least in North America, the Volvo agencies
are snotty and incompetent. I'm betting there are people who opt for a
vehicle solely because they know parts won't bankrupt them and they know
they can get good, affordable service at a dealer near them. Then there's
the fact that station wagons *genuinely* rivalling SUVs in carrying
capacity tend to be extremely expensive not only to service but to
purchase (Audi, Mercedes, BMW...)
> I blame the legislators for botching the law
You're not an American, so again, it's easy for you to criticise based on
what you *think* you know about the history of US fuel economy regulation.
Since you're taking easy potshots at the US system from your comfy chair
across the ocean, I'll return fire, even though I don't live in the United
States: It is an environmental outrage that the UK waited as long as it
did to join the rest of the first world in getting serious about
controlling auto exhaust emissions. Catalytic converters first appeared on
a few UK cars in 1986, a *dodecade* (12 years) after they first appeared
in the United States. And you people were still messing around with
*filthy* carburetted engines and pointless 3.5% MoT Carbon Monoxide limits
in the early 1990s when US equivalents of the MoT tests were rejecting
cars that blew more than 0.8%. And after a couple decades of totally false
propaganda praising the ecological "superiority" of the diesel engine,
gee, whaddya know, it turns out the diesel stench and filth that pervades
London isn't actually "harmless" a bit, but causes cancer.
And to top it all off, you can still buy leaded petrol(!) in England and
parts of continental Europe.
Are we done with our little superiority dance yet, Mr. Chapman, old chap?
> > When big cars got effectively legislated off the
> > roads, America was no smaller, the distances no shorter.
>
> Oh, please! This is the worst possible reason for driving an SUV!
It's a very good reason for wanting a large vehicle. The big cars got
taken away, so people started driving trucks dressed up as cars. It really
is that simple, even if an Englishman can't wrap his mind around it. There
is a near-total absence in North America of the 1.0 to 1.4-litre cars that
are so prevalent in Europe, Japan and England.
> Have you any idea how much more comfortable a good-quality modern
> wagon is than a ladder-framed SUV?
I've got a pretty good idea, yes, since I drive regular passenger cars
myself, own a pickup truck for moving stuff that needs to be moved, and
just put my mother into a Subaru Outback. I never said I own an SUV.
DS
Orlando Fernandez
spam...@chapmancentral.com (Guy Chapman)
You can haul people and things in an SUV where you'd need another
vehicle (re: truck or van) to accomplish the same thing, possibly with
multiple trips.
I have a Volvo 940 estate (wagon) in which I have transported a child's
climbing frame, the largest section of which was 10'6" x 18" x 4" - it
fitted in with the tailgate closed.
Most of the time, though, drivers of SUVs are transporting nothing
larger than their own egos.
Rather than deny people what they want, how about requiring better fuel
efficency standards for these vehicles.
Hmmm. Did they want it? Did they go to the manufacturers and say "we
really want something which has the poor fuel economy and handling of a
truck, but with less load-carrying ability and two-wheel drive so it's
crap in the snow?" Or did the manufacturers spot a tax loophole and
exploit it to make money from the poor sheep who believe the advertising
hype?
Orlando-
I see three main factors that lead to SUV buying:
1- Image: they want to sell you the image of a cowboy, adventurer, etc.
Fact: Most people just see outdoors in the movies.
2- "It's a jungle out there" Fact: Roads are unsafe because of improper
licencing and enforcement...
3. Gas is cheap. Fact: But it causes environmental and foreign policy
crises that can lead to world catastrophe...
B a r r y B u r k e J r .
>
> How come they don't say mini vans, that are as tall or taller
> than some SUV's, roll over just as easily as they say the SUV's
> roll over? Especially those short wheel base and narrow track
> import mini vans.
Because they don't. <G>
Most mini vans actually have lower CGs than SUVs.
They might be taller, but much of the heavy stuff, like the engine,
frame (if equipped), and drive line are lower on the minivan.
R.White
> "R.White" <bic...@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:27bc6c79.02090...@posting.google.com...
> > "bontragerrider" <bontrag...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:<Qnbe9.484758$2p2.19...@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>...
> > > Sorry to say, but the SUV is popular because it filled a need that was
> lost
> > > when station wagons stopped being made. <snip>
> >
> > What country are you from where they have stopped making station
> > wagons?
>
> That would be the US. The Taurus wagon was the last viable market presence,
> and they stopped making those long ago.
That's funny because the 2003 Taurus wagons are hitting the showroom
floors here in the US. What other "US" are you talking about?
http://www.fleet.ford.com/products/fleet_showroom/Large_Cars.asp
Orlando Fernandez
das...@engin.umich (Daniel J. Stern)
Orlando-
That's one side of the story. The other being how they regulated the
popular european cars (Fiat, Renault, etc) out the market. Until the
European designed Ford Focus came back to change the market, and force
Toyota, Mazda, Honda, BMW (Mini) and others to come up with the most
efficient car on earth: the hatchback...
Zoot Katz
<VA.0000050...@chapmancentral.com>, Guy Chapman
<spam...@chapmancentral.com> wrote in reply to,
"Daniel J. Stern" <das...@alumni.engin.umich.edu>:
>> You really can't blame the automakers for this one. They're in business to
>> make money, after all.
>
>No, I blame the legislators for botching the law and the automakers for
>exploiting it in the most cynical way possible, so shared blame.
Check this guy's address. Detroit is in Michigan. He's either a shill
for or been duped by the Coalition for Vehicle Choice bulldadda. That's
one of those phoney 'grass-roots' movements created for and supported by
Detroit automakers.
I've posted this before when dealing with fossil addicts arguing that it
is better that we have more fuel efficient cars going to junkyards than
out of the showrooms:
http://www.ecoiq.com/magazine/opinion/opinion12.html
"Fuel efficiency efforts, particularly with respect to oil use, have
greatly diminished. The average fuel economy of new cars and light
trucks actually declined 6 percent from 1988 to 1997, and the oil
intensity of the U.S. economy has barely declined in the past 10 years."
http://www.aceee.org/tstimony/resource.htm
"The recent oil price run-up is due in no small part to the growth in
consumption of petroleum products—mainly gasoline and diesel fuel—in the
United States during the past 12 years. Gasoline and diesel fuel account
for about 55 percent of total U.S. oil consumption. The average fuel
economy of new passenger vehicles (cars and light trucks) declined from
a high of about 26 miles per gallon (mpg) in 1988 to about 24 mpg in
1999, due to increasing vehicle size and power, the rising market share
for light trucks, and lack of tougher fuel economy regulations (see
Figure 2). And vehicle use steadily climbed about 3 percent per year
during this period. As a result of these two factors (decreasing vehicle
efficiency and rising vehicle use), consumption of gasoline and diesel
fuel this year will be about 10.6 MBD, 1.7 MBD (19 percent) greater than
in 1988."
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2001-02-09-green.htm
"Some of the largest SUVs are so big that they're classified as
heavy-duty trucks, which makes them exempt from fuel-economy laws and
subject to weaker tailpipe standards,"
http://www.dallasnews.com/autos/story/183935_autosfuel1002.html
"But automakers and groups such as the Coalition for Vehicle Choice,
which lobbies against government fuel-economy rules, have long argued
that consumers want larger vehicles and not small minicompacts and
compacts that consume less gasoline."
http://www.colby.edu/personal/t/thtieten/air-carbon.html
Since its introduction in 1978, the CAFE has substantially increased
fuel efficiency of cars and light trucks. From 1975 to 1993 the average
fuel efficiency of light duty vehicles has increased by 60 percent, from
15.3 miles per gallon (mpg) to 25 mpg. Moreover, most of the efficiency
improvements were obtained by improving technology, with little change
in vehicle size and a net increase in acceleration performance. One
study estimates that these CAFE standards have saved over 2.5 million
barrels of oil per day.
Although the average fuel economy increases were impressive, further
examination of the data illustrates that most of the fuel efficiency
progress occurred from 1975 to 1982. Further momentum was partially
inhibited by lack of congressional support to heighten CAFE standards.
Since 1985, CAFE standards for passenger cars have not increased and the
standard for light trucks has only increased .2 mpg per annum. CAFE
standards lacked impetus during this period because its underlying
rationale was undergoing monumental reconstruction. CAFE was originally
created to decrease the demand for oil imports by enhancing fuel
efficiency. Oil is an essential component for economic activity and
OPEC’s oil embargo in 1973-74 clearly demonstrated that the US economy
was very vulnerable to the actions of foreign oil suppliers. However,
after the pricing effects of OPEC’s second oil embargo of 1978-79 began
to diminish, many lawmakers felt that the primary mission of CAFE had
been made obsolete by the new and different economic environment of the
1980s. The combination of low real oil prices and gradually increases
in per capita incomes gave many American the financial ability to ignore
fuel efficiency. Furthermore, the automobile industry were aggressively
lobbying to decrease CAFE standards, complaining that it gave foreign
car makers a significant comparative advantage over the US market
because foreign auto manufacturers produce vehicles with much higher
fuel efficiency levels than American automobiles. Despite these set
backs, CAFE has been kept alive by persistent environmental groups
concerned about the negative impacts of global warming. Their
determination has helped introduce global warming as the driving mission
behind CAFE. In addition, environmental international conferences, like
the Kyoto protocol, have provided CAFE with a greater public following
and have improved its recognition within the environmental arena.
Ironically, CAFE regulations have unintentionally created perverse
market incentives to purchase and create vehicles that are relatively
less efficient. It is much more expensive to maintain CAFE standards for
larger and mid-size passenger cars than it is for smaller cars.
Manufacturers most allocate more of their financial resources on the
research and development needed to make station wagons as fuel efficient
as smaller cars, which weigh considerably less. This additional R&D
spending is represented in the ultimate price of the larger size cars,
and acts as a major deterrent for potential buyers. Meanwhile,
compliance for light trucks is much easier than passenger cars because
CAFE standards are much lower. This especially true for large sports
utility vehicles like the GMC Suburban who are entirely excluded from
CAFE standard because their weight exceeds the 8,500 lbs. limit. The low
compliance cost on these light trucks makes them relatively less
expensive than cars. Consequently, the increase in price of cars, the
decrease in the price of light trucks, demand for more cargo space and
passenger room, and the added benefits of four-wheel drive have caused
automobile consumers to substitute cars for trucks. Constituting over 40
percent of the automobile market, light trucks have gained a substantial
share within the last decade. Although their fuel efficiency is much
lower than passenger cars, 80 percent of these light trucks are only
used for personnel transportation. This shift in consumer purchases
toward less fuel-efficient vehicles has caused the average fuel economy
to drop since 1988.
The architects of CAFE intended automobile manufacturers to pursue
strategies that relied upon technological changes in regards to vehicle
engine modification or physical design adjustment, pertaining to shape,
size, and weight, to improve the fuel efficiency of their models. These
types of technological changes take considerable time, usually three to
five years. To provide firms ample time to prepare for standard
increases, CAFE implicitly subsidizes manufacturers through a credit
system. When a standard has been exceeded, manufactures can avoid
penalties temporarily or permanently by applying credits earned from
previous CAFE surplus, expected future CAFE surpluses, or production of
alternative-fueled vehicles. However, CAFE was not entirely prepared for
some of the more devious strategies performed by firms. For instance,
some of the manufacturers who produce both domestically and abroad can
evade penalties by moving models between domestic and import fleets in
order to accommodate a fleet fuel economy averages that is below CAFE
standards. This can be accomplished by altering the origin of parts or
the location of production. Furthermore, some light truck producers have
increased the weight of their truck lines above the gross vehicle
weights limits governed by the CAFE standards in order to remain
abstained from its troublesome legislation. These larger trucks include
Dodge Rams, Ford Econolines, Ford F and C/K series pickups, GMC, Sierra
pickups, GMC Suburbans, and GMC Vanduras.
--
zk
Mike...@mailcity.com
mike
fbloogyuds
> Oh, please! This is the worst possible reason for driving an SUV! Have
you
> any idea how much more comfortable a good-quality modern wagon is than a
> ladder-framed SUV?
Since the Mercedes M-class is undeniably a comfortable wagon/suv, and since
it
is a ladder-class design, I think your argument is garbage.
Floyd
Brandon Sommerville
>How can it be lower when it is built on the same chassis?
Since most SUVs are built on truck frames and most minivans are built
on car frames. There are exceptions to both cases, particularly in
the small SUV and cross over segments.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
The easy way is always mined.
fbloogyuds
> On Sun, 8 Sep 2002, Guy Chapman wrote:
> > WTF can you carry every day which fits in an Excursion but won't go in a
> > V70?
>
> Donno, I don't own either vehicle. I do have plenty of friends who own
> S/V70s, however, and they're hardly economical to own.
One of my friends owns an Expedition; for his business. It seats 6 and
carries all their paragliding gear (including his tandem rig in addition to
his normal rig). A V70 would carry 4 at most, and not get to the places
he needs to get to. Of course, this is a TRUE off-road requirement, so
the V70 wouldn't work anyway.
The off-road requirement is the reason I need an SUV (or crew-cab
4WD truck), too. US paragliding off-road requirement are much different
than those of our fellows in the BHPA over in the UK. Nor do we have
trams like all the PG people in the Alps use.
Floyd
fbloogyuds
> <VA.0000050...@chapmancentral.com>, Guy Chapman
> <spam...@chapmancentral.com> wrote in reply to,
> "Daniel J. Stern" <das...@alumni.engin.umich.edu>:
>
> >> You really can't blame the automakers for this one. They're in business
to
> >> make money, after all.
> >
> >No, I blame the legislators for botching the law and the automakers for
> >exploiting it in the most cynical way possible, so shared blame.
>
> Check this guy's address. Detroit is in Michigan. He's either a shill
> for or been duped by the Coalition for Vehicle Choice bulldadda. That's
> one of those phoney 'grass-roots' movements created for and supported by
> Detroit automakers.
I've never heard Daniel called a "shill" before... And he's certainly not
(to my uncertain knowledge) associated with any of those groups you mention.
Floyd
Mike...@mailcity.com
the posted question if you chose to reply to it.
mike
fbloogyuds
> How can it be lower when it is built on the same chassis?
Go out and look at a Honda Odyssy and Acura MDX (or Honda Pilot).
They are built on the same chassis. Or, Toyota Sienna and Highlander
or Lexus RX300. The difference is ground clearance - the SUV
has more.
The only US manufacturer's minivans built on the same chassis were
the Ford Aerovan (F150 truck chassis) and GM's Aerostar (1500
truck chassis). The trucks/suv's based on those chassis also had
much higher ground clearance.
Floyd
nmoberg
I used to take a lot of good natured ribbing from 4 guys that we
worked with when they started a networking company in the U.K.
They all had small cars typical for the U.K. including things like the
ever present Escort. I had a TBird SC and a Pontiac 3.4 DOHC at the
time. I heard about my gas guzzling lack of conscience just about
every time we got together to do business.
Well these 4 guys hit the networking just right and made a lot of
money. I don't remember all the bigger and better cars on the way up
for these 4 but I do remember the cars when I last saw them. 1 Rolls
Royce, 1 BMW 850, 1 Mercedes S class 500 and 1 Land Rover! I've seen
it over and over in the U.K. cars are getting bigger and SUVs are
showing up all over the place. A bit hypocritical.
B a r r y B u r k e J r .
>
> How can it be lower when it is built on the same chassis?
>
> mike
>
> "B a r r y B u r k e J r ." wrote:
> >
> > Mike...@mailcity.com wrote:
> > >
> > > How come they don't say mini vans, that are as tall or taller
> > > than some SUV's, roll over just as easily as they say the SUV's
> > > roll over? Especially those short wheel base and narrow track
> > > import mini vans.
> >
> > Because they don't. <G>
> >
> > Most mini vans actually have lower CGs than SUVs.
> >
> > They might be taller, but much of the heavy stuff, like the engine,
> > frame (if equipped), and drive line are lower on the minivan.
> >
> > Barry
Huh? What minivan and SUV share a chassis?
B a r r y B u r k e J r .
You guys aren't what most people complain about. <G>
Nathan Nagel
Heh, as far as the Insight goes... friend of mine just bought a new
Civic hybrid. Time Will Tell how well that works out. At least there's
one environmentalist who puts his $$ where his mouth is, and I admire
him for that. I just hope he doesn't regret the purchase in a few
years.
What I find really amusing is the way CA has basically made itself the
most automotive-unfriendly state and yet it is the one with the most
sprawling spaces that really require a car to travel through. You think
CA has energy problems now? Imagine what would happen should their Zero
Emission Vehicles (really Remote Emission Vehicles) actually took off
like they hoped... but, as they are discovering, it's kinda hard to
legislate technological advances...
nate
Zoot Katz
"fbloogyuds" <flo...@accessone.com> wrote:
>I've never heard Daniel called a "shill" before... And he's certainly not
>(to my uncertain knowledge) associated with any of those groups you mention.
>
>Floyd
Yeah, well, when that fossil addict attitude gets cross-posted to a
bicycle news group, he appears more delusional than malicious, though
still totally whacked from huffing gas fumes.
May you all choke in hell.
--
zk
The Real Bev
> What I find really amusing is the way CA has basically made itself the
> most automotive-unfriendly state and yet it is the one with the most
> sprawling spaces that really require a car to travel through. You think
> CA has energy problems now? Imagine what would happen should their Zero
> Emission Vehicles (really Remote Emission Vehicles) actually took off
> like they hoped... but, as they are discovering, it's kinda hard to
> legislate technological advances...
I'd be happy if they'd just legislate South Pasadena into a parking lot...
The roads have deteriorated so badly that I doubt we'd be any worse off if
we just told the feds "No thank you on the highway funds, we'll deal with
our smog ourselves in our own way."
Got MTBE?
--
Cheers,
Bev
66666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666
Vampireware; n, a project capable of sucking the lifeblood
out of anyone unfortunate enough to be assigned to it,
which never actually sees the light of day, but nonetheless
refuses to die. -- Trygve Lode
Marc
>How can it be lower when it is built on the same chassis?
Because the SUV versions are jacked up higher.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
Marc
>You really can't blame the automakers for this one.
Yes. I can and will. They could easily have made the Caprice, jacked
up the price to cover the hit on CAFE, and still made money. Instead,
they converted the plant to more profitable trucks. They would still
have made money on the cars, but the SUVs made them more. If they
were to start making the Caprices again, they should still be able to
make money on them. They were cheap. They shared most parts with
other existing vehicles, so the cost to keep them up to date was
already being paid.
During the time the Americans dropped the RWD 4-doors, the foreign
makes have made *more* of them.
I do now and will continue to blame the automakers.
Orlando Fernandez
sschi...@aol.comnilfeces (keith s.)
(That's one side of the story. The other being how they regulated the
popular european cars (Fiat, Renault, etc) out the market. Until the
European designed Ford Focus came back to change the market, and force
Toyota, Mazda, Honda, BMW (Mini) and others to come up with the most
utter bullshit you fuckwit! FIAT is the ultimate in shit designs...
Renault sucks... neither could hold up to american roads. Which
ironically enough are in better upkeep than the roads in europe!
The Ford Focus(hence forth know as the FUCKUS) has had at
least 9 major recalls for serious design defects(different that
manufacture defects) I suggest the you shove a lit Tiki torch up your
ass and sing ethel merman tunes until the ambulance comes to take you
away.
When the blind leadeth the blind... get out of the way
Nefarious Necromancer 42nd class
Every time you masturbate, god kills a kitten. Please thin of the
kittens! The more people I meet the more I like my dog.
Orlando-
Then the little Mickey Mouse Japanese and American (?) cars are great?
What's your favorite: the Toyota Corolla automatic? or the last great
American little car, the Chevette? Did you ever compared the American
made Ford Escort to its sibling in Europe? I know, you may be in the
junk trade.
Sheep!!!
Orlando Fernandez
nmo...@hotmail.com (nmoberg)
Orlando-
There are pigs everywhere, but you are forgetting the other side of the
equation: SUVs are weapons in the hands of untrained, careless American
drivers.
Nathan Nagel
Now that I find hard to justify. You want to blame the auto mfgrs. for
producting the product that they can make the most money on? Gee, what
would you have done?
I think the blame rests squarely in 2 places: 1) anyone who was a part
of the original implementation of CAFE, for leaving a loophole to be
exploited and 2) the general American public, for buying SUV's en masse
rather than full sized cars (while they were still available.) Nowhere
else...
nate
Biff Hitler
"Guy Chapman" <spam...@chapmancentral.com> wrote in message
news:VA.000004f...@chapmancentral.com...
>
> Hmmm. Did they want it? Did they go to the manufacturers and say "we
really
> want something which has the poor fuel economy and handling of a truck,
but
> with less load-carrying ability and two-wheel drive so it's crap in the
> money from the poor sheep who believe the advertising hype?
Generally speaking, you'll go broke trying to extract money from poor sheep,
won't you?
But rich sheep, now, there's a different animal altogether.
Brandon Sommerville
>
>Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 08 Sep 2002 23:00:44 GMT, Mike...@mailcity.com wrote:
>>
>> >How can it be lower when it is built on the same chassis?
>>
>> Since most SUVs are built on truck frames and most minivans are built
>> on car frames. There are exceptions to both cases, particularly in
>> the small SUV and cross over segments.
>You are avoiding the question, asked. I would suggest you read
>the posted question if you chose to reply to it.
How many minivans have the ground clearance of an SUV? By lifting it
up higher and providing an "offroad" suspension, the COG gets higher.
Stephen H. Westin
>
> das...@engin.umich (Daniel=A0J.=A0Stern)
<snip>
> We know most of you were perfectly happy with your 21-mpg-on-the-highway
> Caprice Estates, but we can't make 'em any more.
No, try "We'd like to keep making Caprices, but we can make loads more
money by converting that plant to build Yukons." That's what actually
happened to the Arlington, Texas assembly plant.
I'm afraid that people would really rather have a big, dumb truck than
a large passenger car. Remember, Ford still makes the Crown Vic, Grand
Marquis, and Town Car. So obviously it's legal to do so; GM has just
chosen to abandon that style of car because they don't see sufficient
demand. Chrysler just doesn't have the resources to make it an option
for them.
<snip>
> Orlando-
>
> That's one side of the story. The other being how they regulated the
> popular european cars (Fiat, Renault, etc) out the market.
Piffle. They left because they couldn't manage the level of
reliability and durability to compete in the North American market. No
regulation necessary.
<snip>
--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.
Michael Young
news:27bc6c79.02090...@posting.google.com...
> "Michael Young" <mik...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:<wXDe9.3$w5....@dca1-nnrp2.news.algx.net>...
> > "R.White" <bic...@charter.net> wrote in message
> > news:27bc6c79.02090...@posting.google.com...
> > > "bontragerrider" <bontrag...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:<Qnbe9.484758$2p2.19...@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>...
> > > > Sorry to say, but the SUV is popular because it filled a need that
was
> > lost
> > > > when station wagons stopped being made. <snip>
> > >
> > > What country are you from where they have stopped making station
> > > wagons?
> >
> > That would be the US. The Taurus wagon was the last viable market
presence,
> > and they stopped making those long ago.
>
> That's funny because the 2003 Taurus wagons are hitting the showroom
> floors here in the US. What other "US" are you talking about?
>
> http://www.fleet.ford.com/products/fleet_showroom/Large_Cars.asp
Haven't seen any wagons on the road except the odd Volvo from time to time.
Have you? Maybe they're all around us everywhere, and I just don't notice
because they're so unremarkable and instantly forgettable. That's a good
thing, actually.
Orlando Fernandez
biff...@example.net (Biff Hitler)
really want something which has the poor fuel economy and handling of a
truck, but with less load-carrying ability and two-wheel drive so it's
crap in the snow?" Or did the manufacturers spot a tax loophole and
exploit it to make money from the poor sheep who believe the advertising
hype?
Generally speaking, you'll go broke trying to extract money from poor
sheep, won't you?
But rich sheep, now, there's a different animal altogether.
Orlando-
Poor sheep in America don't get nothing, not even public transportation
or a bike lane to let them be clean. Au contraire, they are forced into
buying cheap big junk, for which they have to work like sheep...
Daniel J. Stern
> "Daniel J. Stern" <das...@alumni.engin.umich>:
> >> You really can't blame the automakers for this one. They're in business to
> >> make money, after all.
> Check this guy's address. Detroit is in Michigan.
Yes, Detroit is in Michigan. I, however, am in Canada. I have a degree
from the University of Michigan, that's why I'm eligible for the alumni
internet service they provide.
You'd've done better to check my NNTP posting host.
> He's either a shill
*chuckle* Damn, the jig is up. Guess I'd better start rejecting the fat
paychecques I've been getting from Ford, GM and Chrysler. Shoot, now how
am I gonna make the payments on my new Grand Canyonero?
> been duped by the Coalition for Vehicle Choice
Whatever. I am an SUV-nonowner, and have no plans to purchase one.
I do, however, own seven bicycles.
You were saying?
DS
Mike...@mailcity.com
mike
Daniel J. Stern
> The only US manufacturer's minivans built on the same chassis were
> the Ford Aerovan
No such vehicle
> and GM's Aerostar
No such vehicle
DS
Reassembler
"Joshua Hirschel" <jhir...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:BCue9.16805$jG2.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Orlando Fernandez" <OFern...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:23450-3D...@storefull-2254.public.lawson.webtv.net...
>
> biff...@example.net (Biff Hitler)
> Because denying people what they want is exactly what the Left is
about.
> They don't give a rabid rat's ass about safety or the
environment.
>
>
> Orlando-
>
> Heil Hitler!!!
>
> *snip*
>
> I'm new to the NG, but both of these comments are absolutely
asinine.
>
> Denying people what they want is what "the Left" is all about?
Most liberal
> issues, even by their critics' standards, are about providing
services the
> free market is unable/unwilling to provide (e.g. health care,
prescription
> drug benefit subsidies, etc
Well, yes. If I'm unwilling to provide you with something, you can
try to take it from me, or get the government to force me to give
it to you. If you think that's cool, you're a fascist.
Reassembler
Reassembler
"Matt J" <nast...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:61a1f374.02090...@posting.google.com...
>
> I'm loving this thread. It's not the older GMC Jimmy's and
whatnot
> that we hate - people actually used those for what they were
designed
> for. But now they have these Lincoln and Lexus SUV's, with
leather
> interiors and 2WD... Come on guys! They guzzle gas, roll over
easily,
> and don't even handle well in the snow. We have a 1991 Toyota
Previa
> - a minivan with 4WD. While shopping for a new car, there was
only
> one minivan with 4WD - the most expensive one out there. What's
up
> with that? We spend time in Michigan in the winter where the
roads
> aren't plowed and the 4WD helps a lot - but you have to get one
of
> these nonsense leather-interiored luxury SUV's to get 4WD these
days.
You've never seen a Jeep?
Reassembler
Guy Chapman
> The off-road requirement is the reason I need an SUV (or crew-cab
> 4WD truck), too. US paragliding off-road requirement are much different
> than those of our fellows in the BHPA over in the UK. Nor do we have
> trams like all the PG people in the Alps use.
Congratulations on having an actual reason to drive one of these things: I
knew someone out there must have a good reason :-)
So, what proportion of SUV owners paraglide with five friends, I wonder?
Guy
===
Now available in both wedgie and bent flavours!
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony.
http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and dynamic DNS permitting)
Above email a spam-sink. Remove maker of Spam from
bikeHO...@chapmanFOODScentral.com
Guy Chapman
> Generally speaking, you'll go broke trying to extract money from poor sheep,
> won't you?
Poor as in sympathy, obviously, but you have a point: purchase of an SUV in an
urban environment has as a prerequisite the posession of significantly more
money than sense :-)
Guy Chapman
Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> > And sadly only Ford, GM, Saab, Volvo, Mercedes, VW/Audi and a hundred other
> > makers were able to produce wagons and vans which passed the new standard,
> > none of which used nearly enough fuel to satisfy Mr Petrolhead, even if
> > drivers throughout the rest of the world managed to get by with them.
> It's easy for you to criticise, living in the UK, the whole of which would
> fit in one of the smaller American states. Fact is, the US is not the rest
> of the world. It's silly to pretend there is a one-size-fits-all solution
> to everyone's transportation needs and wants the world over.
Sure, but it's beyond silly and well into fatuous to claim that the only
available vehicle for the transportation of a family with its goods and
chattels is an SUV, which the manufacturers' own figures has less interior
space than a minivan which also has lower fuel consumption.
It's also pointless to claim that the size of the US makes the use of an
oversized inefficient vehicle more sensible than the use of a smaller, more
efficient vehicle with more interior space. The Volvo V70 has a huge
load-carrying ability, as does the Saab 9-5, all the minivans, the larger
Mercedes and so on.
And it's foolish to pretend that the distances between cities in the US are a
factor in choosing a vehicle which is normally used for the journey from the
suburbs to the office, which distance is not signficantly longer than many
people's daily commute in any developed country. My round trip to the office
used to be 135 miles, how far is yours?
> Donno, I don't own either vehicle. I do have plenty of friends who own
> S/V70s, however, and they're hardly economical to own. Volvo no longer
> builds cars with the durability, reliability and low upkeep cost of the
> 140s, 240s and 740s that made Volvo famous.
Hmmm. This can't possibly be anything to do with their having been bought by
Ford, surely?
> Parts and service costs are
> hideous on FWD Volvos,
Yes, in the first 10,000 miles mine got through an entire bottle of washer
fluid (the bottle in the car, that is, not a bottle from a shop) :-)
> You're not an American, so again, it's easy for you to criticise based on
> what you *think* you know about the history of US fuel economy regulation.
Or rather what I read on the web and Usenet. I think the light truck loophole
is well documented, so qualifies as "botched" - just like our government
requiring all new cars to be fitted with a catalytic converter, even though on
some then-existing lean burn engines the cat made no measurable difference to
emissions. Cats were the only way the two biggest manufacturers could get
their emissions down to acceptable levels, so they lobbied hard to prevent
other makers from not having to include an expensive part which might otherwise
damage their competitiveness.
Legislators the world over are craven in the face of vested interests.
> Since you're taking easy potshots at the US system from your comfy chair
> across the ocean, I'll return fire, even though I don't live in the United
> States: It is an environmental outrage that the UK waited as long as it
> did to join the rest of the first world in getting serious about
> controlling auto exhaust emissions.
I quite agree. My car has a cat although it was made in 1991, years before it
was compulsory. It's also appalling that ABS is not mandatory.
> And after a couple decades of totally false
> propaganda praising the ecological "superiority" of the diesel engine,
> gee, whaddya know, it turns out the diesel stench and filth that pervades
> London isn't actually "harmless" a bit, but causes cancer.
Indeed, but can be replaced with biodiesel which has lower particulates.
France is the place for diesels, mind.
> And to top it all off, you can still buy leaded petrol(!) in England and
> parts of continental Europe.
You have to try rather hard to get that. I've seen one place in the last year
which sold it, and that was a specialist in classic sports cars.
> Are we done with our little superiority dance yet, Mr. Chapman, old chap?
Did I ever imply that the UK is perfect? Tell you what, though: the
environmental impact of my commuting fifteen miles per day on a bicycle is
pretty low :-)
> It's a very good reason for wanting a large vehicle. The big cars got
> taken away, so people started driving trucks dressed up as cars.
But there are plenty of vehicles with greater carrying capacity and markedly
better fuel economy and handling. That's the whole point.
> It really
> is that simple, even if an Englishman can't wrap his mind around it.
Don't be obtuse.
> There
> is a near-total absence in North America of the 1.0 to 1.4-litre cars that
> are so prevalent in Europe, Japan and England.
Not surprised, especially with the obesity pandemic :-) (OK, cheap shot).
I've not had a car with an engine that small for a long time. The Honda I just
sold was 1.6, the Volvo I still have is 2.3. The company car I had in my last
job was a 2.5. Like I say, I never drove it more than 520 miles in a day (and
do a day's work at the other end, obviously), but I found it perfectly
comfortable.
And still large numbers of SUVs are driven most of the time with one occupant
and no other load. I might just as well buy a Winnebago because I might want
to sleep in the car some day.
Guy Chapman
> Since the Mercedes M-class is undeniably a comfortable wagon/suv, and since
> it is a ladder-class design, I think your argument is garbage.
Since the Mercedes M class is an SUV, I think your example is garbage :-)
Guy Chapman
wrote:
> I've seen
> it over and over in the U.K. cars are getting bigger and SUVs are
> showing up all over the place. A bit hypocritical.
But average fuel economy is improving in every major industrialised
country *except* the US. My personal fuel consumption is around
100 miles per millilitre. And that's wax, not oil........
C.R. Krieger
news:BCue9.16805$jG2.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Orlando Fernandez" <OFern...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:23450-3D...@storefull-2254.public.lawson.webtv.net...
>
> biff...@example.net (Biff Hitler)
>
>
> I'm new to the NG, but both of these comments are absolutely asinine.
Welcome to r.a.d. You can always configure your news server to *not* read this
crap, but you'll want to do it soon before your own mind melts and run out your
ears as it has fo rso many of us.
> As for Orlando, who are you to compare the above person to Hitler? Aren't we
> just grasping at straws a bit too much here? Or are you indeed that twisted
> to think there's a link between someone who criticizes the liberals in
> America with Hitler?
Uh, Josh ... take a look at Biff's ID. Orlando didn't cook that up.
--
C.R. Krieger
"Don't argue with 'em, dear; they're beneath our dignity." - W.C. Fields
B a r r y B u r k e J r .
>
> Haven't seen any wagons on the road except the odd Volvo from time to time.
> Have you? Maybe they're all around us everywhere, and I just don't notice
> because they're so unremarkable and instantly forgettable. That's a good
> thing, actually.
Here in the Northeast US, you'll usually see many Subaru wagons. As you
move northward into New England, you'll see even more.
I don't see them that often, but I've seen some Ford Taurus, Honda,
Audi, BMW, and Mercedes wagons in the last few weeks, along with many
Volvos.
R.White
> "R.White" <bic...@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:27bc6c79.02090...@posting.google.com...
> > "Michael Young" <mik...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:<wXDe9.3$w5....@dca1-nnrp2.news.algx.net>...
> > > "R.White" <bic...@charter.net> wrote in message
> > > news:27bc6c79.02090...@posting.google.com...
> > > > "bontragerrider" <bontrag...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:<Qnbe9.484758$2p2.19...@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>...
> > > > > Sorry to say, but the SUV is popular because it filled a need that
> was
> lost
> > > > > when station wagons stopped being made. <snip>
> > > >
> > > > What country are you from where they have stopped making station
> > > > wagons?
> > >
> > > That would be the US. The Taurus wagon was the last viable market
> presence,
> > > and they stopped making those long ago.
> >
> > That's funny because the 2003 Taurus wagons are hitting the showroom
> > floors here in the US. What other "US" are you talking about?
> >
> > http://www.fleet.ford.com/products/fleet_showroom/Large_Cars.asp
>
> Haven't seen any wagons on the road except the odd Volvo from time to time.
> Have you?
>Maybe they're all around us everywhere, and I just don't notice
> because they're so unremarkable and instantly forgettable. That's a good
> thing, actually.
Yeah, like those blue Chevy Lumina's. Blend in and go un-noticed,
except mine sticks out due to it's (so called) odd color. A somewhat
salmon-gold that when washed and waxed really is noticable. It's weird
because this is a silly little Escort, but I am constantly having people
come up and tell me what a beautifull color my car is and that they
have never seen a color like it. I think it's officially a beige.
Go figure.
R.White
> <Mike...@mailcity.com> wrote
> > How can it be lower when it is built on the same chassis?
>
> Go out and look at a Honda Odyssy and Acura MDX (or Honda Pilot).
> They are built on the same chassis. Or, Toyota Sienna and Highlander
> or Lexus RX300. The difference is ground clearance - the SUV
> has more.
>
> truck chassis). The trucks/suv's based on those chassis also had
> much higher ground clearance.
>
> Floyd
Do you mean Chevy Astro?
R.White
> "R.White" <bic...@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:27bc6c79.02090...@posting.google.com...
> > "Michael Young" <mik...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:<wXDe9.3$w5....@dca1-nnrp2.news.algx.net>...
> > > "R.White" <bic...@charter.net> wrote in message
> > > news:27bc6c79.02090...@posting.google.com...
> > > > "bontragerrider" <bontrag...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:<Qnbe9.484758$2p2.19...@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>...
> > > > > Sorry to say, but the SUV is popular because it filled a need that
> was
> lost
> > > > > when station wagons stopped being made. <snip>
> > > >
> > > > What country are you from where they have stopped making station
> > > > wagons?
> > >
> > > That would be the US. The Taurus wagon was the last viable market
> presence,
> > > and they stopped making those long ago.
> >
> > That's funny because the 2003 Taurus wagons are hitting the showroom
> > floors here in the US. What other "US" are you talking about?
> >
> > http://www.fleet.ford.com/products/fleet_showroom/Large_Cars.asp
>
> Haven't seen any wagons on the road except the odd Volvo from time to time.
> Have you? Maybe they're all around us everywhere, and I just don't notice
> because they're so unremarkable and instantly forgettable. That's a good
> thing, actually.
Here are a few that you would notice. My dream cars!
Nathan Nagel
nate
Nathan Nagel
The Real Jeep(tm) is dead.
nate
Daniel J. Stern
> > It's easy for you to criticise, living in the UK, the whole of which would
> > fit in one of the smaller American states. Fact is, the US is not the rest
> > of the world. It's silly to pretend there is a one-size-fits-all solution
> > to everyone's transportation needs and wants the world over.
>
> Sure, but it's beyond silly and well into fatuous to claim that the only
> available vehicle for the transportation of a family with its goods and
> chattels is an SUV
I surely haven't made such a claim. Americans want, and get, large RWD
vehicles. Everyone would be better off if those large RWD vehicles were
cars. Everyone would be *much* better off if CAFE had never existed and
instead, fuel efficiency in automotive transport were encouraged with
gasoline taxes as has been done in the rest of the world.
But that's not what happened, and so the large RWD vehicles currently
available are truck-based.
> It's also pointless to claim that the size of the US makes the use of an
> oversized inefficient vehicle more sensible than the use of a smaller, more
> efficient vehicle with more interior space. The Volvo V70 has a huge
> load-carrying ability, as does the Saab 9-5
It's easy to buy an SUV for a LOT less money than either of these, and if
you shop intelligently, that SUV will require less expensive service and
less of that.
> And it's foolish to pretend that the distances between cities in the US are a
> factor in choosing a vehicle which is normally used for the journey from the
> suburbs to the office
But people don't have to submit for approval of their reasons for buying
the vehicles they do.
> > Donno, I don't own either vehicle. I do have plenty of friends who own
> > S/V70s, however, and they're hardly economical to own. Volvo no longer
> > builds cars with the durability, reliability and low upkeep cost of the
> > 140s, 240s and 740s that made Volvo famous.
>
> Hmmm. This can't possibly be anything to do with their having been bought by
> Ford, surely?
Nope. Their quality was well on the way down the toilet *years* before
Ford came into the picture.
> "botched" - just like our government requiring all new cars to be
> fitted with a catalytic converter, even though on some then-existing
> lean burn engines the cat made no measurable difference to emissions.
I'm a big proponent of performance-based regulation. If you can figure out
a way to make a low-emissions vehicle using a cannister of chocolate
pudding as your emission control device, go for it!
> Cats were the only way the two biggest manufacturers could get their
> emissions down to acceptable levels, so they lobbied hard to prevent
> other makers from not having to include an expensive part which might
> otherwise damage their competitiveness.
That's not outside the realm of possibility, but I'd like to see
with-and-without-catcon emission certification test results from some of
these engines on which a catcon allegedly has no effect.
> > And after a couple decades of totally false
> > propaganda praising the ecological "superiority" of the diesel engine,
> > gee, whaddya know, it turns out the diesel stench and filth that pervades
> > London isn't actually "harmless" a bit, but causes cancer.
>
> Indeed, but can be replaced with biodiesel which has lower particulates.
Can be, but hasn't been, and probably won't be.
> Did I ever imply that the UK is perfect? Tell you what, though: the
> environmental impact of my commuting fifteen miles per day on a bicycle is
> pretty low :-)
Fair enough, I can agree with that.
> > are so prevalent in Europe, Japan and England.
>
> Not surprised, especially with the obesity pandemic :-) (OK, cheap shot).
...sez the guy from the land of deep-fried candy bars... :^{)} of course
> I've not had a car with an engine that small for a long time. The
> Honda I just sold was 1.6, the Volvo I still have is 2.3. The company
> car I had in my last job was a 2.5.
My daily driver's a 2.5. The biggest-engined car I own has a 3.7. And work
on the 3.3 is coming along nicely.
DS
Mike...@mailcity.com
granddaughters just sold he 2001 Corolla and bought a seven
passenger 2003 Explorer. She loves the thing. Always carries
three children, two in baby seats. In the Toyota there was never
any room for all the 'Stuff' the kids require once she had the
third. If any adults rode in the car she had to let the cars
seats at home. You will never get her in a small car again, till
the kids are grown. I don't see how anyone can possible know why
some body buys what they want with their money so why argue about
it? If you don't like, want or need what SUV's have to offer, I
would suggest you not buy one.
mike
Drew Eckhardt
Matt J <nast...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>aren't plowed and the 4WD helps a lot - but you have to get one of
>these nonsense leather-interiored luxury SUV's to get 4WD these days.
Hogwash.
All Audis are available in AWD, with the A4/S4/A6 coming in both sedan and
wagon forms. The BMW 325ix and 330ix are AWD; and at least the 325 comes
in both flavors. Jaguar has the S-type. Suburu makes a huge range of AWD
wagons, sedans, and coupes. Volvo has the Cross Country. VW offers
the 4-motion Passat in sedan and wagon flavors.
--
<a href="http://www.poohsticks.org/drew/">Home Page</a>
The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting
shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a
different Day.
Aardwolf
Guy Chapman wrote:
> But there are plenty of vehicles with greater carrying capacity and markedly
> better fuel economy and handling. That's the whole point.
>
Yes, like the Holden ("Chevrolet") Caprice.
--325 nhp
--29+MPG highway
--14-second-bracket quarter mile (standing 400M)
--top end over 150mph
--115.7" wheelbase
--Capable of seating six with _plenty_of room (Very closely comparable to the
interior size of the late U.S. model, which I am quite well acquainted with).
--Heavily reinforced to cope with the 5.7L V8 and unpaved Outback roads (giving
durability that most unitized front-drivers severely lack) and drivetrain is quite
robust as well.
--IRS combined with available police/sport suspension gives roadhandling and
balance that must be _excellent_ (again the consensus is that it is a genuine
advance on the U.S. model which despite its solid axle is, in police/"SS" form,
_very_ roadable).
For a price of around $22,000 USD, where, on any market, can a less compromised
passenger vehicle be found? (If space is an issue, there's a near-identical
Chevrolet Lumina/Holden Commodore, but on a 112" wheelbase for just under $20,000
USD.)
> > There
> > is a near-total absence in North America of the 1.0 to 1.4-litre cars that
> > are so prevalent in Europe, Japan and England.
>
> Not surprised, especially with the obesity pandemic :-) (OK, cheap shot).
Has more to do with the existence of roads of no-more-than-Midieval-width combined
with displacement taxes _on top of_ sky-high gasoline taxes, I'd say, all of which
are not encountered in the United States... (Don't worry, I recognize the sarcasm.)
> And still large numbers of SUVs are driven most of the time with one occupant
> and no other load. I might just as well buy a Winnebago because I might want
> to sleep in the car some day.
Wouldn't be near the problem if the 12-17mpg ersatz station wagons were replaced
with 25-30mpg full size cars--but oops, even if they get 30mpg they aren't meeting
the passenger car CAFE average (never mind that the traditional full sized car
should _BE_ the average), so they can't be advertised or too many will sell, so no
large scale public demand can be created (that's what unrestricted advertising does
after all, perverts Smithian capitalism by _telling_ people what they want)
--unlike the SUVs which the automakers _do_ have the luxury of pushing. So the
25mpg, 150mph, straight-tracking .85g Caprice gets replaced by the 10mpg, 102mph
(and try that with any confidence), wallowing .65g Excursion.
--Aardwolf.
Cam Penner
> Cam Penner wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > My Subaru Outback, which is actually a Subaru Legacy station wagon with
> > > larger wheels, has as much or more interior room than many SUVs.
> >
> > Ahh. The confusing Subaru Outback name. Don't you love it when
> > manufacturers use the same name for both a trim level and a model line?
>
> Yeah, isn't that great! <G>
>
> Especially when dealers advertise "Outbacks" at $17,900 (the Sport), and
> my father-in-law goes there looking for a car like my Outback (the
> Legacy), only to be extremely disappointed.
Only they don't make an "Outback Outback". It's the only model line
that doesn't have an Outback trim level.
--
Cam
'89 RZ 350
Cam Penner
posted> says...
> > aren't plowed and the 4WD helps a lot - but you have to get one
> of
> > these nonsense leather-interiored luxury SUV's to get 4WD these
> days.
>
> You've never seen a Jeep?
Or a Subaru?
Brent P
> Yes, like the Holden ("Chevrolet") Caprice.
>
> --325 nhp
> --29+MPG highway
> --14-second-bracket quarter mile (standing 400M)
<snip more of the same>
You do know that GM will not let that car into the USA without ruining
it, somehow. The hope would be aftermarket access to stock parts from
down under to set it right.
I hope GM however, regardless is very successful bringing that car in.
Ford may then have to follow suit with the falcon. But I see a more contour
like future for the holden. A domestic brand car with overseas driving
priorities forgoten because the US marketeers don't know how to sell a
car for how it drives rather than the number of cup holders or some other
crap.
fbloogyuds
Picky, picky, just because I'm a Chrysler guy and don't remember
the names right. Is it Ford Aerostar and GM Astro? Heck if I care,
they were both shitty.
Floyd
Mike...@mailcity.com
wheels is more likely to roll than one with 15 inch, or worse
yet one with 14 inch wheels? I saw them filming a James Bond,
movie one night about thirty years ago, in the parking lot of the
Mint in downtown Los Vegas. I think it was 'Diamonds are
Forever.' To get a vehicle to turn on its side, not even turn
over, the stunt grew had to run one side of the vehicle up a ramp
that was over three feet and high and hidden behind a car. They
were making take after take, they must have wrecked thirty cars
or more, because the cars would not roll over right. If the
driver wasn't going fast enough (about 35 MPH) coming out of the
turn the thing just settled back down on its wheels got out of
control and hit other parked cars, set up for the stunt. How can
a inch or two in chassis height cause a vehicle to roll over on a
flat road, when they couldn't do it with one side going up a
nearly four foot high ramp?
mike