nice SUV article



Status
Not open for further replies.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...

> In 2003 you can still buy cars made by Ford, for example, without ABS
> - although this will probably change in the next coule of years. ABS was fitted to passenger
> aircraft in about 1930. Not standard fitment, my mistake.
>
> As to whether car companies are warm, cuddly, generous types who do all int heir power to ensure
> passenger safety - well, you'd have to argue that out with Ralph Nader.
>
> Guy

I'd love to argue with that stooge. I hope he embarasses himself again in the next election.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia http://www.ramsays-online.com
 
> 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 ****ed 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 **** as the rest of us have to eat.
>
>
>

You mean tougher clean air laws will force them to junk their VW bus and put out the dope? Say
it ain't so!
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia http://www.ramsays-online.com
 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> "Matt" <[email protected]@cognisurf.com> wrote:
>
> > 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.
>

Bzzzt, that's what he said, just no in so many cut and pasted words.

> 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

Not anyone with a brain in their head. This is common knowledge.

--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia http://www.ramsays-online.com
 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> "Matt" <[email protected]@cognisurf.com> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > 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.
> This is where the problem comes from. It is very easy to manipulate the vehicle designation.
>

The problem is that people seem to think CAFE is a governemnt reglatory standard put in place
to protect the world when in fact it was put in place by the auto makers to shut greenies up
for a while.

--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia http://www.ramsays-online.com
 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > 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?
>

Yes I'm quite sure that stale gas, carbon deposits, internal engine case condensation, coolant
system corrosion and just general rust and deterioration caused by stagnant moisture kills a car
much faster than using it. Furthermore, scheduled maintence still has to be preformed regardless of
miles driven, that means an oil change one or twice a year and a coolant system flush one a year or
two years regardless of if the car has been driven or not, more waste. Don't do the maintenance?
Even MORE waste in the form of premature engine failure.

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

If frequently used car A pollutes X per mile then infrequently used car B pollutes X+C per mile
where C is the extra pollution caused by the above mentioned problems. If you need a simpler
explanation get hooked on phonics.

> 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.
>

Somewhere between 100K and infinity you failed to understand what per mile means. It is not my place
to make up for your failed education.

--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia http://www.ramsays-online.com
 
Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> wrote:

> Bzzzt, that's what he said, just no in so many cut and pasted words.

No. He said the PT was maniuplated to AVOID car CAFE.

PT Cruiser had no significant impact on DC's car cafe, in or out of the calculation.

It was manipulated to SHOEHORN it into into small truck cafe.

The semantic and economic difference between the two should be blatantly clear to all but the most
drug-addled moron.

The first implication is that PTC was of such poor milage that it needed to be reclassified to
keep DC out of trouble. This is wrong: it was reclassified to keep all those fatass Durangos out
of trouble.

.max

--
the part of <[email protected]> was played by maxwell monningh 8-p
 
Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> wrote:

> Yes I'm quite sure that stale gas, carbon deposits, internal engine case condensation, coolant
> system corrosion and just general rust and deterioration caused by stagnant moisture kills a car
> much faster than using it.

hahahahahahahahahhaaaaaahhhh.

Unless the gasoline additives come out of solution or decompose, there's no such thing as stale gas.
Since you've decided to bring it up: how quickly does gas go "stale"? What if it's diesel? Or
LNG/propane??

and, since it's winter, let's be topical: i guess a garaged, undriven car is going to suffer a lot
more chloride corrosion than one driven thru salt slush every day right??

And a car not driven during super cold weather will use a lot more gas than one sitting around
idling to warm up, and will wear much faster than one which is driven cold w/o the warmup. yep.

Furthermore, scheduled maintence still has to be preformed
> regardless of miles driven, that means an oil change one or twice a year

The spec. is typically 3000 miles/quarterly for american cars. And since the oil is recycled and
remanufactured, the waste is fairly minimal. In fact, there's even a disposal fee for used oil.
Guess you pour yours down the street drain, eh?

> and a coolant system flush one a year or two years regardless of if the car has been driven or
> not, more waste.

gee... my coolant is good for five years. get with it, man.

Don't do the maintenance? Even
> MORE waste in the form of premature engine failure.

rilly?? ewe are sew smrt^H^H^H^H snart.

> If you need a simpler explanation get hooked on phonics.

Sadly, you suffer from parametric innumeracy, an inability to quantify things within reasonable
boundaries. This explains your inability to evaluate relative qualities and quantities. It explains
why you think a car sitting in a garage corrodes while its engine fills with carbon deposits...

You haven't proven anything of the kind about a rarely used vehicle, just some _unquantified_ blah
blah handwaving, none of which actually adressed pollution or milage, and some of which is just
plain wrong or irrelevant.

Bottom line, to bring this back to the point of contention: simple car ownership does not invalidate
a person's opinion that fuel-wasting vehicles are a bad idea. To the contrary, every mile pedaled
gives that rider's opinion a little more credibility.

.max

--
the part of <[email protected]> was played by maxwell monningh 8-p
 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> Mark Jones wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>

$50,000 is that easy for you to come by?

> 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

There already is a limit on weight, licensed your vehicle lately, did you have to pay for a
commercial truck license? Unfortunately no one has thought about limiting how light you can made a
piece of garbage KIA Sephia, is that my fault?

> 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

Jesus are you ever misinformed. There is a law for everything you just mentioned. That's why the
Ford Land Whale has the ground clearance of a Dodge Stratus.

> 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_

Ya right. I know my leg thinks there's a lick of difference between a Warn brush guard and a Ford
Windstar front bumper.

> 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.
>

Good for you. You come up with a number for mileage and emissions that satisfies your hard on and
when you pass that law you will of course remember to tell the American public they will have to
turn in any car that's been on the road over 90,000 miles or 5 years unless they are willing to
undergo extensive testing and possible repair/modifications at their own expense to keep said car.
Oh ya and since individual cars do not have to meet their published CAFE numbers fromt he factory
you will be sure to mandate dealers to emissions test all new cars and send the ones that fail to
the wrecking yard for "environmentally friendly" disposal.

> 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.
>

Fortunately, your "right" to infringe on my rights is a figment of your imagination.

--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia http://www.ramsays-online.com
 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> On Sat, 25 Jan 2003 23:24:12 -0600, "Mark Jones" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> http://www.smart.com/
> >I took an extended look at it and came to the conclusion that it looks like a kid's toy.
>
> It's the perfect town car. You can park it tail-in to the kerb and it doesn't stick out further
> than a standard parking bay - you can get two or three into one regular size onstreet parking bay.
> Also worth remembering that the bulk of those seven-seat SUVs commuting into Anytown, USA, are
> carrying one person. The Smart has room for that plus one passenger.
>
> >A top speed of 83.9 mph is kind of weak.
>
> Just remind me what the speed limit is again?
>
> Guy

Mr. engineer, please be aware that if the top speed of a car is 80mph than it's optimal operating
speed is quite a bit less than that, and in a head wind is diminishes even further. There is
only one word for a car like that in Canada, laughable. Unless you think it's more
environmentally responsible to own one of those and another "real" car for the winter months.

--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia http://www.ramsays-online.com
 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Bzzzt, that's what he said, just no in so many cut and pasted words.
>
> No. He said the PT was maniuplated to AVOID car CAFE.

By bringing down the average number for DCs SUV fleet, that's right, what part don't you understand
about manipulating numbers? Or is it every part that you don't understand? I see now that you are
such a hot head you need to invent things to argue about, keep pulling yourself to your own tune you
won't be wasting any more of my time from my kill file.

--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia http://www.ramsays-online.com
 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> On Sat, 25 Jan 2003 23:05:08 -0600, "Mark Jones" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Just because you don't understand auto enthusiasts doesn't make you right and them wrong.
>
> Auto enthusuiasts <> SUV enthusiasts. I'm an auto enthusiast - I've rebuilt cars from the ground
> up, including transmissions. I wouldn't buy an SUV because they offer worse handling, worse
> roadholding and worse rollover protection than a car weighing a third less and going half as far
> again on the same amount of fuel, but which is still easily capable of carrying a family and its
> "stuff" in comfort.
>
> From an engineering standpoint they suck badly - either they are optimised for driving on road, in
> which case they are so severely compromised offroad as to be useless (and still less good on road
> than a normal car), or they are optimised for offroad performance, in which case they handle like
> a barge. This can be offset to a degree by bolting on complex active suspension, but this still
> leaves them less safe than a standard car - and much more expensive.
>

Make up your mind, if they are less safe than a car for the driver then why do you have this
inferiority complex about your own car being unsafe in the face of the SUVs on the road? Constantly
contradicting yourself may be a sign of brain disease. Have it checked out. I have an SUV, it has
big off road tires, it cost me half as much as a current model Ford Focus, I'm the sole occupant
most of the time, I burn 15$ US in gas per week, I've never had an accident other than being rear
ended buy an idiot driving an unsafe Honda Civic. Does that meet all your requirments Heir ******?
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia http://www.ramsays-online.com
 
Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> wrote:

> By bringing down the average number for DCs SUV fleet, that's right, what part don't you
> understand about manipulating numbers? Or is it every part that you don't understand?

I actually agreed that they were manipulating CAFE standards, just that you and the other guy got
precisely, exactly backwards --wrong --what the motivation was.

To refresh your bitter brittle mind, he said the PT was reclassed " to avoid having to meet car fuel
economy standards." Contrast this to your first sentence above.

Are you sure you want to keep this up?

>I see now that you are such a hot head you need to invent things to argue about, keep pulling
>yourself to your own tune you won't be wasting any more of my time from my kill file.

So soon????

.max

--
the part of <[email protected]> was played by maxwell monningh 8-p
 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> Mark Jones wrote:
> >
> > 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 protected]
>

I suppose there are many auto enthusiasts that you you are laughable, what's your point?
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia http://www.ramsays-online.com
 
On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 21:39:10 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:

>And "poetry?" They're about as poetic as my ageing Volvo 940, only with worse aerodynamics. Poetry
>is a Ferrari Testa Rossa, or a Caterham Superlight - a road legal track car which handles like a
>rocket propelled roller skate. 0-60 in 3.4s. With a 1.8 litre engine! Now that's /proper/
>engineering.
>

Howdy Guy

Re the Caterham: spot on, mate. I've not had the pleasure of a C7, myself, but have been Westfielded
several times. EEK

I'm not qualified to speak about the properness of the engineering of a Westie, but thay are darned
fast :)))

James

--
A credit limit is NOT a target.
 
Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> wrote: [...]
: And on that day well have cross posting whiners complaining about two

???

Where is this thread crossposted to? According to my newsreader it is appearing in exactly one
newsgroup.

: seater cars not being the efficient people movers that a 4 seater is and that any single occupant
: vehicle should be a motorcycle.

A bicycle actually.

: Then we'll have to talk about helmets.

That's a different topic, and a personal choice, But, ok. Let's talk helmets. For? Or against?

: The Jihad continues.

'Jihad' meaning 'struggle, yes I guess it does.

Wunnerful though, innit?

--
'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
 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> wrote: [...]
> : And on that day well have cross posting whiners complaining about two
>
> ???
>
> Where is this thread crossposted to? According to my newsreader it is appearing in exactly one
> newsgroup.
>

???? Has that day come yet? I told you people to notify me of these things!

--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia http://www.ramsays-online.com
 
On 27 Jan 2003 11:36:21 GMT, Barry Gaudet <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark Jones <[email protected]> wrote:
>: "Barry Gaudet" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>:> 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.
>
>:)
>

Given the current trend; people will be driving around semi trucks and those huge Greyhound size
motor homes for every day transportation in 15 years or so........
 
On Mon, 27 Jan 2003 12:40:14 -0400, Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> wrote:

>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.

I am a year-round cycle commuter, I drive the car on average maybe two or three times a month, and
that usually with four seats occupied. And quite often my wife takes the kids to school by bicycle
as well (7 miles round trip, they are aged 6 and 8). Oh, and when I travel on business I usually
walk to the station and take the train.

So, not quite as profligate as if I drove a single-occupant SUV.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.
 
"Chris Phillipo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> 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.

Not nearly as big a crime as using it more. The more you use that car, the more pollution you
create. The less you use it, the less your impact on the environment. That should be obvious.

Our society is not going to be rid of cars any time soon. So let's work with what we have -- by
encouraging people to try to drive less, and do so in more fuel efficient, less polluting vehicles.

Matt O.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.