Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

Another lie. It really is impossible for you to tell the truth isn't it LP?

 

I find everything about Lloyd odd. I'd killfile him if I didn't like
watching him squirm so much.

 

No, because they are still trucks, and trucks that are used for commercial
applications and trucks that are used to ferry kids around town look exactly
the same, except the trucks that haul kids seldom have paint, cement,
wallpaper spackle, or other such splashes of the job all over the outside.

I think people with your agenda to abolish large passenger cars simply
failed to understand that the buyers were still out there even after the
products they wanted were not, and you failed to understand the automakers
would respond to the demand for large cars by giving us passenger trucks.
What you repeatedly fail to recognize is that people, families, want large
cars for whatever reason. You need to get these buyers into a vehicle that
is acceptable to them first, and acceptable to you second. If you don't like
the truck-based vehicles that consumers are going after today, then you need
to get them into the car-based vehicles of yesteryear. Or, you need to shut
up and leave people alone, and stop imposing your value system upon the rest
of society.

I don't have any idea of what the guy or gal in the next lane was doing
before they got into the next lane, or after they get out of it.

I would agree that if I used an SUV the way I see many of them get used,
they don't make much sense. But, what if the time I see them is when they
are being used for the Exception Runs, instead of the Regular Use that the
buyer had in mind when they bought the SUV?

 

No, because people in the city tend to pay for other things instead of
transportation costs. If you tax only gasoline, you are unfairly
penalizing rural folks. If you also tax rides on mass transit, in
taxis, etc., then you might get closer to equitable, but you will never
be completely fair ... just too many variables involved.


Matt

 

My Jeep Comanche consistently matched or exceeded the EPA estimate (it
got 24 mPG) and my Chevy K1500 doesn't quite match the EPA estimate (it
gets 16 and I think the EPA highway rating was 17 or maybe 18), but it
is off by only 10% or so. And most of that is because I've added a lot
of weight to it - fiberglass cap, receiver hitch, snowplow, running
boards, etc. It got close to the EPA highway rating when it was new and
before I added all the stuff.


Matt

 

Or hotel rooms...


Matt

 

Maybe you should go after the polution and not the vehicle size.

Your railing against the Crown Victoria LTD stationwagons of yesteryear were
sized based arguments. You came along after the arguments started and went
after the pollution and gas guzzling issues. Eventually, Detroit stopped
building the Crown Victoria LTD and after a few years somebody offered up
the Mini Van. A few years after that, the SUV was born. Then the SUV concept
was applied to larger and larger platforms until we got the grandaddy of
behemoths, the Chevy Suburban. Now, you are going after the size again, and
the gas guzzling is an apparent afterthought.

You are part of the very problem you are complaining about, and this is the
problem you refuse to recognize.

 

Depends on the speed. Above about 35 MPH, an SUV size vehicle will snap
the average telephone pole clean off. I see it once or twice a year
around here. A heavier vehicle will snap the pole at a slower speed. A
2,000 lb. car would probably not fair well against a pole at anything
less than 50 MPH or better.


Matt

 

I'm sorry you are so gullible.

Matt

 

Yep, and charge city dwellers what the true cost of mass transit is, not
the heavily subsidized cost.


Matt

 

Virtually all car and truck magazines report much lower mileage than I
get for my vehicles. Same for my motorcycle. I can only assume they
are drive like maniacs. My Kawasaki Voyager averages 48 MPG and will
get 50-53 all day long on a road trip. Most bike mag tests yielded less
than 40. I've run it hard and cruised at 75 MPH across Kansas and never
got below 42. I don't think I could run it hard enough on the street to
get less than 40. Much the same for my cars. My Chrysler minivans get
21-24 in normal daily commuting. Most car tests get something in the
16-18 range. I can't even imagine how to drive my minivans hard enough
to get mileage that low ... maybe if I let them idle all day while we're
at work!


Matt

 

How clever, Lloyd. I'm still reeling from that one. 8^)

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

An SUV performing the same unsafe maneuver is far more hazardous to
surrounding traffic. Surely even you can see that?

nate

 

Yeah, but Lloyd thought it in his mind (funny how Bush, who is
supposedly dumb, is clever enough to make Lloyd, who is supposedly
brilliant, think things like that), so that makes it reality and
therefore Bush is guilty of it.

So, Lloyd, what about Sadam offering to and actually paying families of
homocide bombers as a reward? Does that make him a supporter of
terrorism and therefore a legitmate target in an all-out war on
terrorism? (Lloyd will come back with something suggesting that Bush is
evil and Sadam is good and innocent. Or he won't just to make me wrong;
but now he will because I said that; now he won't...)

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

You don't understand. Lloyd's used to seeing his elitist progressive
professor buddies driving their SUV's all over town, so he assumes
everyone else does that. Lloyd drives a Mercedes, so you can't accuse
him of that.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

Why do you assume that the econoboxes and the SUVs have the same
amount/type of safety equipment?

Do Yugos and Camrys (just picking two cars for this example) ahve the
same amount/type of safety equipment?

 

*sigh*

it has nothing to do with the amount of safety equipment and everything
to do with physics.

Is it not a fact that a SUV by necessity has a higher CG height to track
ratio and is therefore more likely to lose control? Is it not also a
fact that it has more mass, and therefore if it does lose control and
hit a nearby vehicle, it will do a greater amount of damage to the
vehicle and/or its occupants?

To respond you your non sequitur, no, they don't have the same safety
equipment as passenger cars in many cases. Often, a vehicle classified
as a light truck will have less/inferior safety equipment than a car, as
cars have more stringent safety standards. (this has been addressed
somewhat in recent years, however.)

Are you quite finished yet? Some of us would actually like to discuss
driving at some point.

nate

 

What you seem to need is a car that can carry as many and as much as a SUV.

Lobby GM to build LHD versions of the Commodore, Berlina, or Calais sedans
and stationwagons.

rhys

 

Why are you sighing? Is it another manifestation of your cluelessness?

It depends upon which car is being compared to which SUV. Isn't that
obvious?

See my example above and substitute "car" for "SUV" in your inane
question above.

Is it not also a

"If it does lose control" <---key assumption. Apparently you think
that all SUVs are more likely to lose control than all cars. At least
that seems to be the assumption that you are working under based upon
your posts.

And what about the SUVs that have more safety equipment than some
cars? You just dismiss those, right? LOL.

LOL. What a sad little whiner.

If you want to "talk about driving" your Stude go right ahead and
ignore other folks "talking" about driving SUVs.That is unless someone
is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to participate in
threads that don't meet your standards for a "driving" group,
hypocrite.

Your "this group is only about my flavor of driving " silliness is
very amusing though.

Thanks.

 

Most car magazine writers ohh and ahh about the power and performance when
around 4K revs etc... using higher revs to get better power, and less fuel
economy.
My 2.8 turbo Diesel has never been over 3.5K revs since I bought it, despite
HP peaking at approx 4.5K in the manufacturors brochure Dyno diagram, and
Torque at about 4K revs. 3K in 5th gear has more than enough power to pull
it and a trailer, both loaded with SCUBA gear up a steep hill.
Cars seem to peak at 5K revs, yet my mothers 3.8 V6 does 2.6K revs at 100KmH
in top gear.

Of course power mad journalists will report lower MPG's

rhys