nice SUV article

Mark Jones said:

You seem to act on the belief that you are the only one who can make up their own mind about what
they want.

It may seem that way to you. Yet again, you are wrong.

Quoted message said:

I don't care if someone wants to drive an F-350 quad cab to the grocery store to pick up a gallon
of milk at the grocery store one block from their house if that is what they want to do.

We understand that by now. Many of us disagree, of course.

Quoted message said:

I have considered getting another truck in addition to the one I have. It would be a supercharged
Ford Lightning. It would serve no real purpose other that being an incredibly fast pickup.

How juvenile!

--
Frank Krygowski [email hidden]

Mark Jones said:

Just because you don't understand auto enthusiasts doesn't make you right and them wrong. It just
makes you narrow minded.

And what makes you think I don't understand auto enthusiasts? The mere fact that I disagree with
some of them?

Also - has it not occurred to you that there are _many_ auto enthusiasts who think SUVs are
laughable?

--
Frank Krygowski [email hidden]

Mark Jones <[email hidden]> wrote:
: "Barry Gaudet" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
:> That is incorrect. Autocorps are not receiving windfall profits from sales volumes but from each
:> unit sold. The SUV is a huge money maker per unit.

: That is exactly what I meant.

Oh, ok. Pardon my telepathic disability.

: It is a combination of high volume and high unit sales profit that tells me that SUV's aren't
: going away.

We'll see. A barrel of crude is over $30 US. [$33.28 as of this morning] It wouldn't take much -
say Saddam sabotaging much of the oilfields within his reach and SUV drivers might have to sell
their houses to buy gas for their vehicles. As someone [you?] pointed out a similar supply
situation in the 70's augered in the supremacy of the economy auto. As well the price premium of
SUV's merely indicates its status as... well... a status symbol. Fad is fickle. Fashion is
fleeting. Tomorrow SUV's might be sooooo yesterday. The new thing might be the full suspension
mountian unicycle for all one might devine. [And we can all devoutly pray for that to come to be]
Or possibly that lower form of life known as trial lawyers will have exhausted the tobacco corps,
fast food corps and who ever else, as cash cows and will finally target the auto corps and SUV
owners specifically for the vast destruction they have visited upon the medical well-being of the
morally superior auto-free members of society. We can only hope on that score as well.

🙂

--
'People think I'm insane because I am frowning all the time All day long I think of things
but nothing seems to satisfy' 'Make a joke and I will sigh And you will laugh and I will
cry' -Black Sabbath

"Mark Jones" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The government doesn't show up at our door and tell us what to buy. We go

to the car dealer and get what we want based on our ability to pay for it. This is our right as
consumers in a market based economy.

Well, that's how it used to be. These fascists who want to tell everyone else how to drive, and who
want to take from each according to his means and to give to each according to his needs, have been
fighting for a long time to achieve their purposes.

Their side lost the cold war, but with the help of Allah and His followers and the threat of a
madman with nukes controlling the world's oil supply, they will finally have their way.

We won't be consumers in a market-based economy when they win. We'll be supplicants to a tyrant.

What's funny is that these pointy headed cretins think that they will still be college professors
and fashionable environmentalists when the change for which they are fighting so hard finally
comes to pass.

They will in time finally realize that their little pony tails and their little liberal twit minds
don't exempt them from the logical results of their actions. When the subjugation for which they've
fought happens, they will be as [censored] up as the rest of us.

It will be a Pyrrhic victory, but it will be fun to watch as they sputter and protest that they're
better than the rest of us even as they're fed the same [censored] as the rest of us have to eat.

Mark Jones said:

There are plenty of vehicles to choose from, but it would seem that many people want trucks and
SUVs and high performance cars instead of economy vehicles. Isn't it great to be able to get a big
SUV if that is what you want, or do you advocate restricting the sale of SUVs?

I would really like to know if the anti-SUV group advocates restricting the sale of SUVs or doing
something to make it more difficult to own or use one.

Depends on how you define SUV. If it's anything close to, say, a Lincoln Navigator, then yes, I'm in
favor of restricting sales and making it more difficult to buy one.

I think vehicles which are intended for passenger transport (or, more realistically, mere driver
transport) should have maximum weights, to reduce lethality in collisions with smaller vehicles. I
also think they should have bumper and frame structures low enough to allow other cars' passenger
protection devices (like door beams and crush zones) to work. I think they should have limitations
on headlight heights, to prevent excessive glare. I think extra driving lights should be illegal,
for the same reason. I think blacked out windows should be illegal, especially on tall vehicles,
since ability to see through surrounding vehicles enables earlier accident avoidance. I think
cattle-basher bars on grills should be illegal, since they greatly increase pedestrian injuries and
fatalities when pedestrians are hit. I think _all_ vehicles should meet the same passenger safety
requirements. I think vehicles which are clearly not intended to be used as trucks should meet the
same gas mileage and pollution regulations as cars.

IOW, I think your "right" to buy the vehicle of your choice should not allow you to unnecessarily
reduce the rights of others. If that means outlawing the SUV in its present form, so be it. We got
along fine without them, and we're not getting along as well _with_ them.

--
Frank Krygowski [email hidden]

"Frank Krygowski" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I think vehicles which are intended for passenger transport (or, more realistically, mere driver
transport) should have maximum weights, to reduce lethality in collisions with smaller vehicles.

I frequently see F-350 crew cab trucks being driven with no passengers and no payload. I also see
the corresponding trucks from GM and Dodge hauling around one person. There are a lot of 4 door
trucks on the road now because they can carry quite a few people and have good payload capacity when
needed. I very seldom see these truck pulling a trailer or hauling anything, but they don't get
singled out like SUVs.

Why is it that this is OK, but if someone does the same thing with an SUV, they are attacked as
being inconsiderate and wasteful?

Quoted message said:

I also think they should have bumper and frame structures low enough to allow other cars'
passenger protection devices (like door beams and crush zones) to work.

I agree that the bumpers should be positioned so they will not do excessive damage in an accident.

Quoted message said:

I think they should have limitations on headlight heights, to prevent excessive glare. I think
extra driving lights should be illegal, for the same reason.

Headlight height will always be a problem for someone. My Corvette is low enough that a lot of
vehicles have headlights that shine inside it.

Quoted message said:

I think blacked out windows should be illegal, especially on tall vehicles, since ability to see
through surrounding vehicles enables earlier accident avoidance.

There are already laws on the books regulating this. It just needs to be inforced. I have more
problems with panel vans and large trucks. They are like driving with a wall blocking your view.

Quoted message said:

I think cattle-basher bars on grills should be illegal, since they greatly increase pedestrian
injuries and fatalities when pedestrians are hit.

It depends upon how a vehicle is used. It should be possible to get an exemption if justification
can be shown. For most people, they do this for looks, not because they need it.

Quoted message said:

I think _all_ vehicles should meet the same passenger safety requirements. I think vehicles which
are clearly not intended to be used as trucks should meet the same gas mileage and pollution
regulations as cars.

Safety requirements do need to be raised. I think the auto companies could easily do this if they
were told that they have to.

Gas mileage is determined in large part by weight, so if you compare a 5000 pound car and truck,
they both get low fuel mileage. Many gas powered trucks already exceed any proposed emissions
standards.

Quoted message said:

IOW, I think your "right" to buy the vehicle of your choice should not allow you to unnecessarily
reduce the rights of others. If that means outlawing the SUV in its present form, so be it. We got
along fine without them, and we're not getting along as well _with_ them.

I do not agree on this point. The idea of this type of interference in vehicle choice is
unacceptable.

I wouldn't mind so much people driving SUV's if I could have a device on my small car or bicycle
which was as much risk to them as they are to
me. And I wouldn't mind if they contributed to USA's foreign policy expenses in proportion to fuel
consumption. And I wouldn't mind if 99% of the time station wagons or vans wouldn't work better.
And I wouldn't mind if driver training requirements scaled with the actual skill required to
operate the vehicle safely. And I wouldn't mind so much if SUV's were driven more often in
accord with sense and physics. (Last time I was in a really nasty, unplowed parking lot, several
4WD vehicles had almost as much trouble with the ice as my 2WD car.) And I wouldn't mind if I
saw a little mud on them now and then. And I wouldn't mind if they usually had several people in
them! And I wouldn't mind if they were operated as if the driver was strapped to the front like
a human sacrifice.

I don't like driving SUV's and trucks, but I'd love to drive a fast sports car (maybe a Boxter) if
it wasn't a selfish, ostentatious, wasteful display. You can get a lot of the same results if you
really need them by going to the gym and a good tailor. It might take less time than all the OT to
pay for a fancy car, too.

Anyway, banning is probably wrong because some small percentage of SUV's have a legitimate use, as
in a certain hilly, muddy neighborhood in St.Albans, Vt. And excessive regulation tends to have
unanticipated costs. Shaming is better. Maybe a little tax in proportion to the damages and
dangers. Maybe a discount on that if you show up at the tax man's with mud, scratches, little tree
branches, etc.

Maybe I should drop all this. If I live long enough and you all drive SUV's, I'll live on ocean
front property. Of course that might not be a selling point anymore.

Frank Krygowski said:

Mark Jones said:

There are plenty of vehicles to choose from, but it would seem that many people want trucks and
SUVs and high performance cars instead of economy vehicles. Isn't it great to be able to get a
big SUV if that is what you want, or do you advocate restricting the sale of SUVs?

I would really like to know if the anti-SUV group advocates restricting the sale of SUVs or
doing something to make it more difficult to own or use one.

snip
--
Lincoln Ross NOTE ADDRESS CHANGE: [email hidden]

"Frank Krygowski" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

If that means outlawing the SUV in its present form, so be it. We got

along fine without them,

Many of us got along fine without YOU.

I wouldn't mind so much people driving SUV's if I could have a device on my small car or bicycle
which was as much risk to them as they are to
me. And I wouldn't mind if they contributed to USA's foreign policy expenses in proportion to fuel
consumption. And I wouldn't mind if 99% of the time station wagons or vans wouldn't work better.
And I wouldn't mind if driver training requirements scaled with the actual skill required to
operate the vehicle safely. And I wouldn't mind so much if SUV's were driven more often in
accord with sense and physics. (Last time I was in a really nasty, unplowed parking lot, several
4WD vehicles had almost as much trouble with the ice as my 2WD car.) And I wouldn't mind if I
saw a little mud on them now and then. And I wouldn't mind if they usually had several people in
them! And I wouldn't mind if they were operated as if the driver was strapped to the front like
a human sacrifice.

I don't like driving SUV's and trucks, but I'd love to drive a fast sports car (maybe a Boxter) if
it wasn't a selfish, ostentatious, wasteful display. You can get a lot of the same results if you
really need them by going to the gym and a good tailor. It might take less time than all the OT to
pay for a fancy car, too.

Anyway, banning is probably wrong because some small percentage of SUV's have a legitimate use, as
in a certain hilly, muddy neighborhood in St.Albans, Vt. And excessive regulation tends to have
unanticipated costs. Shaming is better. Maybe a little tax in proportion to the damages and
dangers. Maybe a discount on that if you show up at the tax man's with mud, scratches, little tree
branches, etc.

Maybe I should drop all this. If I live long enough and you all drive SUV's, I'll live on ocean
front property. Of course that might not be a selling point anymore.

Frank Krygowski said:

Mark Jones said:

There are plenty of vehicles to choose from, but it would seem that many people want trucks and
SUVs and high performance cars instead of economy vehicles. Isn't it great to be able to get a
big SUV if that is what you want, or do you advocate restricting the sale of SUVs?

I would really like to know if the anti-SUV group advocates restricting the sale of SUVs or
doing something to make it more difficult to own or use one.

snip
--
Lincoln Ross NOTE ADDRESS CHANGE: [email hidden]

"Frank Krygowski" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

If that means outlawing the SUV in its present form, so be it. We got

along fine without them,

Many of us got along fine without YOU.

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Mark Jones said:

Quoted message said:

Um, I don't think there's much doubt about them being a bad thing.

Quoted message said:

There is plenty of doubt when a bunch of people start to whine and complain about people wanting
to buy a big heavy vehicle just because these complainers don't want people using lots of
gasoline.

The fact that people complain about the ridiculous gas-guzzling of SUVs doesn't negate their
*other* bad points.

It is not a matter of patriotic duty to burn as much oil as possible in your lifetime, and to
compensate for the shortening of that lifetime through lack of exercise by burning fuel faster
while you
live.

Guy

If you are done preaching let me point out that you have already admitted to owning an internal
combustion engine yourself which presumably you do use, so any argument you make against them is
coming out your ass as it were.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia ramsays-online.comramsays-online.comOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

SUV's might be sooooo yesterday. The new thing might be the full suspension mountian unicycle for
all one might devine. [And we can all devoutly pray for that to come to be] Or possibly that lower
form of life known as trial lawyers will have exhausted the tobacco corps, fast food corps and who
ever else, as cash cows and will finally target the auto corps and SUV owners specifically for the
vast destruction they have visited upon the medical well-being of the morally superior auto-free
members of society. We can only hope on that score as well.

🙂

And on that day well have cross posting whiners complaining about two seater cars not being the
efficient people movers that a 4 seater is and that any single occupant vehicle should be a
motorcycle. Then we'll have to talk about helmets. The Jihad continues.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia ramsays-online.comramsays-online.comOpen ↗

In article <[email hidden]>, luigi12081 @cox.net says...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The concept of a vehicle designed and licensed to be driven on public roads, and having a top
speed of 160 mph is ludicrous to me...but it would be your money, so ca va.

See above, I don't disagree. But I'm a bit amused that SUVs are regulated as 'light trucks,' a
designation originally intended to help out farmers. I'd interpret the SUV as a very clever
attempt to get behind passenger-vehicle regulations on emissions and crash safety.

I don't know what's so clever about handing a suitcase full of cash to congressmen whenever the
question comes up. Effective, yes.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia ramsays-online.comramsays-online.comOpen ↗

Chris Phillipo said:

If you are done preaching let me point out that you have already admitted to owning an internal
combustion engine yourself which presumably you do use, so any argument you make against them is
coming out your ass as it were.

So, if one has a car, and drives it 4/30 days, bicycling the other 26 days, any imprecation one
might make about reducing fuel imports through choosing to bicycle or using a more appropriate
fueled vehicle is invalid.

You are so full of manure your ammonia runoff is making my eyes water a thousand miles away.

.max

--
the part of <[email hidden]> was played by maxwell monningh 8-p

Chris Phillipo <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, luigi12081 @cox.net says...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The concept of a vehicle designed and licensed to be driven on public roads, and having a top
speed of 160 mph is ludicrous to me...but it would be your money, so ca va.

See above, I don't disagree. But I'm a bit amused that SUVs are regulated as 'light trucks,' a
designation originally intended to help out farmers. I'd interpret the SUV as a very clever
attempt to get behind passenger-vehicle regulations on emissions and crash safety.

I don't know what's so clever about handing a suitcase full of cash to congressmen whenever the
question comes up. Effective, yes.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia ramsays-online.comramsays-online.comOpen ↗

It's clever in the same way it was clever for daimler-chrysler to classify those crappy little
pt cruisers as "trucks" to avoid having to meet car fuel economy standards. Sure it's a
truck...it's got a tiny car body planted on a tiny jetta or golf chassis, but it's a
truck...yeah, that's the ticket.

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Chris Phillipo said:

If you are done preaching let me point out that you have already admitted to owning an internal
combustion engine yourself which presumably you do use, so any argument you make against them is
coming out your ass as it were.

So, if one has a car, and drives it 4/30 days, bicycling the other 26 days, any imprecation one
might make about reducing fuel imports through choosing to bicycle or using a more appropriate
fueled vehicle is invalid.

Yes, that is correct. Finally you are learning. Especially when you consider a car that spends more
time sitting around than driving pollutes much more per mile. Actually the act of owning a car to
use it that little is a crime agaist the environment.

--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia ramsays-online.comramsays-online.comOpen ↗

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Chris Phillipo <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, luigi12081 @cox.net says...

Quoted message said:

> The concept of a vehicle designed and licensed to be driven on public roads, and having a
> top speed of 160 mph is ludicrous to me...but it would be your money, so ca va.

See above, I don't disagree. But I'm a bit amused that SUVs are regulated as 'light trucks,' a
designation originally intended to help out farmers. I'd interpret the SUV as a very clever
attempt to get behind passenger-vehicle regulations on emissions and crash safety.

I don't know what's so clever about handing a suitcase full of cash to congressmen whenever the
question comes up. Effective, yes.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia ramsays-online.comramsays-online.comOpen ↗

It's clever in the same way it was clever for daimler-chrysler to classify those crappy little
pt cruisers as "trucks" to avoid having to meet car fuel economy standards. Sure it's a
truck...it's got a tiny car body planted on a tiny jetta or golf chassis, but it's a
truck...yeah, that's the ticket.

That deal would have taken at least one nondescript black briefcase in and of itself.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia ramsays-online.comramsays-online.comOpen ↗

Matt' @cognisurf.com said:

It's clever in the same way it was clever for daimler-chrysler to classify those crappy little
pt cruisers as "trucks" to avoid having to meet car fuel economy standards. Sure it's a
truck...it's got a tiny car body planted on a tiny jetta or golf chassis, but it's a
truck...yeah, that's the ticket.

Bzzzt.

First of all, it's on a Neon chassis.

Second of all:

<http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/roadtests/firstdrive/43987/article.html> The slugline is "PT Helps
DC Meet CAFE".

The article goes on to explain that was designed to be classified ed as a light truck by NHTSA so as
to boost the light truck CAFE. Which is pretty clever.

It gets about the same milage as a Neon, so putting it in the passenger car CAFE wouldn't make much
of a dent in that pool's numbers.

Thus, in a real sense PT Cruisers subsidize D-C SUV's, a fact which will come as a major surprise to
many PT-C drivers.

.max

--
the part of <[email hidden]> was played by maxwell monningh 8-p

"Matt" <[email hidden]@cognisurf.com> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

It's clever in the same way it was clever for daimler-chrysler to classify those crappy little pt
cruisers as "trucks" to avoid having to meet car

fuel

Quoted message said:

economy standards. Sure it's a truck...it's got a tiny car body planted

on

Quoted message said:

a tiny jetta or golf chassis, but it's a truck...yeah, that's the ticket.

This is where the problem comes from. It is very easy to manipulate the vehicle designation.

Chris Phillipo said:

Yes, that is correct. Finally you are learning. Especially when you consider a car that spends
more time sitting around than driving pollutes much more per mile.

what in the world are you talking about? Are you sure you're not getting infrequent usage confused
with short/city trips vs. long/highway trips?

And please, since you've made such a counterintuitive claim, i'm going to have to insist you
quantify "Much more per mile".

Since you seem to be innumerate, 'll point out that if a person takes a bike 10 miles to work,
leaving his car in the garage, his gas milage --- gallons of gasoline used/miles traveled -- is
somewhere between several 100K and a few million mpg. Not quite infinite, but somewhere around five
or seven orders of magnitude better.

Sure you're not suffering SAD? That cramped little fishy smelly island getting to you? Maybe you
should get outside and slop the sled dogs...

.max

--
the part of <[email hidden]> was played by maxwell monningh 8-p