Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by Don Quijote, Apr 3, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Chris Phillipo wrote:
    > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
    > >
    > > The fact is, SUVs impose negatives on others, many of which have been mentioned: bumpers that
    > > crash through car bodies at shoulder height, headlights that glare in eyes because of their
    > > great height, front "bull-bars" that dice pedestrians like french fries, bulk that blocks
    > > others' view of traffic, etc etc.
    > >
    > Oh narrow minded one, could it be that you micro mobile crs are the problem and should be removed
    > fromt he road due to the danger they pose to their occupants?

    Reasonable people can see the difference between choosing to adopt a risk for onesself, and imposing
    a risk on others.

    > What am I saying, there's only one side to an argument and it's up your ass right?

    Sorry if I got too intellectual for you. I sometimes forget your limitations. But when you come
    through with a well-crafted phrase like "up your ass," I'm reminded that you're not part of
    "reasonable people."

    Frank Krygowski [email protected]

  2. Marc

    Marc Guest

    Daniel J Stern <[email protected]> wrote:
    >On Thu, 10 Apr 2003, Marc wrote:
    >2> More examples of SUVs that use the same engines as passenger cars
    >2> available by request.
    >> Then I request. What American trucks share the same engine with a car?
    >Well, lessee here.

    I should have been more clear. What current American trucks share the same engine with a current
    American car (and that same vehicle is not also sold under a foreign name).

    One thing that I have not chimed in on before that your list brought up is emissions. I do not know
    what the emissions standards are for cars vs trucks. One thing I do know is that the 5.0 was dropped
    from the Mustang for, among other reasons, emissions. However, the "similar" engine persisted in
    trucks past the discontinuance in cars. This would indicate to me that there are lower standards for
    trucks. Is this the case? I'd preferably like a link to the EPA web site that answers this, but I
    was unable to find an answer on their web site.

    >And a great many more recent and older models, besides.

    How many fit my restated challenge above?

    Marc For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
  3. Carl Taylor

    Carl Taylor Guest

    [email protected] wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

    > Can we assume you do not use any gasoline?

    Can we assume you're too stupid to understand the difference between using some gasoline out of
    necessity and using A LOT of gasoline out of greed? The fact is that people are buying big trucks
    largely for ego purposes and these trucks get poor gas mileage. The drivers care more about their
    egos than the waste they perpetrate, hence they are subject to criticism. They are essentially
    stealing oil from the future for vanity's sake.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.