On 6 Sep 2005 16:28:44 -0700, "Chalo" <
[email protected]> wrote:
>(PeteCresswell) wrote:
>>
>> Per Llatikcuf:
>> >
>> >Nobody needs a 2 ton SUV that gets 10 miles a gallon!!!
>>
>> Actually, more like 4 tons/14 mpg.
>>
>> But some people do need such things - some for load carrying capacity... but
>> some large people just for egnomics/safety.
>
>I'm calling BS on this assertion. (I don't mean Bill Sornson, either.)
>
>I'm 6'8" and about 375 lbs. these days, so I have made a few
>observations about automobile ergonomics by now. I have tried on many
>cars-- this is a ritual for me every time I have to rent one, for
>instance-- and I have never found a correlation between overall car
>size and driver's seat room.
Ditto here, at 6'3". This becomes particularly true for certain
pickup turcks and large SUVs, where the seat will not go back far
enough for me to drive without my knees hitting the lower part of the
dash.
>I would rate full-size pickups and the SUVs based upon them as above
>average in driver accomodations, and SUVs based on mid-sized pickups as
>distinctly below average in this regard. However, all of them are
>surpassed by some small cars.
Toyotas have, in the past, been particularly accommodating in this
area.
>The most spacious driver's seat I have ever driven was in a 1974 VW
>Karmann Ghia convertible. The second most spacious was that of a New
>Beetle.
>
>I've heard favorable reviews about the Mini Cooper and the Toyota RAV4
>from folks near my height.
I can confirm on the RAV4; I haven't had a chance to try out a new
Cooper yet, though its predecessor was another matter entirely.
>If carrying capacity is the criterion, minivans usually have more
>capacity than large SUVs. Full-size vans have more yet. But let's be
>clear-- people do not buy SUVs because they are big on the inside.
>They buy SUVs because they are big on the outside (the better to bully
>and obstruct other road users). It's rare that such vehicles have any
>more interior room than a typical station wagon.
I'll note that this varies wildly with model and year. An
acquaintance who needs a cargo vehicle to haul stuff to trade shows
has used an older Ford Explorer for a number of years, but he found
that the newer model of that vehicle had substantially less usable
room due to the way the interior layour had been changed. I have a
Ford Escort wagon, and find its meager cargo space barely adequate,
nowhere near the (by comparison) monstrous cavern of the Nissan Stanza
Wagon that I'm rehabbing as the backup.
>When my sister took up playing the harp, there were few options
>available for vehicles that could carry her instrument. A variety of
>vans, the Chevrolet Suburban, or... a Ford Taurus wagon. That's
>right-- when it comes to real cargo room, a Taurus wagon equals a
>Suburban. But hey, a Taurus doesn't accept a brush guard or salve its
>operator's insecurities!
And the older models had truly abysmal transmissions, but that's a
different matter.
>I have to observe that probably 19 out of 20 gargantuan SUV's and
>full-sized personal pickup trucks I see don't even carry a second
>occupant, let alone a load of cargo that would require such an
>outlandishly sized vehicle.
More of them get detailed regularly than ever carry a quarter of their
rated load.
I concur; based on wide personal observation, a disproportionate
number of SUVs are owned and driven by arrogant assholes who simply
want to be able to throw their weight around.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
