Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

No, CAFE would favor diesels. It's our (1) lousy, high-sulfur diesel fuel,
and (2) particulate and NOx emissions standards. But Mercedes is going to
intoduce an E-class diesel next year, and Jeep will put a diesel in the
Liberty too.

 

Sure, just like Bush never came out and SAID Saddam was responsible for 9/11.

 

No, because the makers had to make smaller, lighter, yet still
high-performance vehicles. Without CAFE, we'd still be driving what we were
in the early 70s. 5000-lb lumbering land yachts.

 

Huh? Small SUVs are safer than mid-size ones? Well, there goes your "weight
= safety" argument!

Yes, minivans. Note that mid-size cars beat mid-size SUVs (5.26 to 6.73)

 

Suburban, Tahoe, Yukon, Hummer, Escalade, Escalade EXT, Escalade ESL, Hummer
H1, Hummer H2, Expedition, Excursion, Durango, Range Rover.

Try looking at the real mpg reported in road tests.

 

I think it's ugly. The only good-looking SUVs, in my opinion? The Murano,
Endeavor, and Liberty.

 

Totally false. Why do you think auto makers went to catalytic converters?

 

OK. You could also base car registration fees on gas mileage instead of
value, as is done now in a lot of states.

 

Today's cars put out less than 1% of the emissions that 68 did.

 

And we should have adjusted CAFE for trucks as they started being used as cars
are used.

But most SUVs are used for solo commuting (note how few of them can drive in
an HOV lane), or running errands. Buying an 8-mpg behemoth for the one time a
year you may need to carry 8 people, as I said earlier, is like buying a Cray
supercomputer for your desktop just in case you need to decrypt a message from
Andromeda.

 

Then my Mercedes gets 120 mpg.

 

Of course, right-wing radicals like Putney and bin Laden just have to spew
hatred.

 

AND THAT'S WHY ADVERTISING WORKS!!!! (unfortunately) -Dave

 

Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

 

That's odd. Every truck or SUV I've ever driven gets about 20% less than
the EPA estimates, lightly loaded in mostly highway driving. In contrast,
I've never driven a car that got less than the EPA estimates, most cars beat
the estimate by at least 10%. -Dave

 

Big? Heavy?

To Americans, the following is a typical "truck". The vehicle you linked to
is also called a "truck" in America. The confusion stems from the fact that
in the United States, *pickup* trucks (slang "truck", see the link below)
are wildly popular vehicles to both own and drive. Unfortunately, many SUVs
have been created on pickup truck platforms, and 99% of them are used as
commuters for one person, who invariably drives it like a sports car. Thus,
the horrid SUV problem in the United States. Anyway, we have so many crappy
SUVs based on pickup truck platforms here, that even car-based SUVs are
often mistakenly referred to as "trucks". That's why you are so amused, I
bet. -Dave

http://www.fordvehicles.com/trucks/f150/index.asp?bhcp=1

 

I could understand this in a lot of places, but I'd think the places
Babs shops would have decent restrooms.

 

I never fail to be amused by what Europeans call cars.

Ed

 

Must be your driving style. My currrent Expedition is rated 13/17. I easily beat
the 13 around town and match the 17 on a long trip. My overall avearge is around
16. The Mustang I used to own would not make either number although it wasn't to
far off. My Father's Ranger beats both numebrs easily. My old F150 will still
beat the highway number, but it sucks gas around town - probably needs some work
(it is 12 years old).

I would guess actual truck mileage suffers verus the EPA estimates becasue of
driving styles. The EPA uses the same cycle no matter what the capabilities of
the vehicle. Since a lot of trucks come with realtively powerful engines , I
imagine they can accelerate much more briskly than the EPA cycle requires. If
you use this capability, the mileage is bound to suffer.

Ed

 

People will buy and drive what they want. The studies be dammed.