STUPID UNNECESSARY VEHICLES



Status
Not open for further replies.
The same number of small car that carry four

mike

Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
> On Tue, 08 Apr 2003 14:50:48 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >AN SUV with eight people use less gas than two cars with eight people, what's your point?
>
> And what percentage of SUVs actually carry 8 people?
> --
> Brandon Sommerville remove ".gov" to e-mail
>
> Give a man fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of
> his life.
 
On Tue, 08 Apr 2003 16:00:22 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

>The same number of small car that carry four

So why did you even make the claim?
--
Brandon Sommerville remove ".gov" to e-mail

Give a man fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life.
 
Gasoline Demand To Grow Even As Thirstiest SUVs Shunned

By ROY R. REYNOLDS

Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES HOUSTON -- Maybe not in Texas, the big-car capital of the world, but sport
utility vehicles across the U.S. are shrinking.

Sales of the largest SUVs - General Motors Corp.'s (GM) Suburban and Ford Motor Corp.'s (F)
Excursion - are in double-digit declines (the Excursion will reportedly exit the market after 2004
due to slow sales). The hot new SUVs are so-called "crossover" vehicles, based on platforms from
cars instead of trucks.

Yet even if the largest SUVs' declining popularity brings an increase in U.S. fuel economy, analysts
and observers expect the trend to have a negligible effect on U.S. gasoline demand.

"People getting out of a huge SUV and into just a large SUV isn't going to do much," said Kevin
Smith, editor in chief of Motor Trend magazine.

Analysts don't know precisely how the trend will affect fuel economy. But a 10% increase in the fuel
economy of new passenger cars and light trucks such as SUVs - assuming factors such as average miles
driven in a year - could save the U.S. a little more than 1 billion gallons of gasoline a year. As
new cars replace older ones on the road, the effect would be cumulative, increasing savings, said
John Maples, an analyst with the U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration.

But, Maples added, even that savings makes a dent of less than 1% in total U.S. gasoline demand,
which the EIA estimates was 8.844 million barrels a day in 2002.

Government analysts project U.S. gasoline demand will grow by 2.5% this year. Although trimming
demand growth would have some impact, the "take-back effects" of higher gas mileage would ensure
it's a small one.

"When cars get cheaper to drive, people drive more," Maples said.

The number of vehicle miles traveled has already risen in the last decade, despite declines in
fuel economy.

"There are more vehicles on the road, and people are just using their vehicles more," Maples said.
"You're kind of fighting an uphill battle."

Fuel Economy Remains Low Automobile engines are more efficient than those built a couple of
decades ago, though that efficiency has been directed toward horsepower instead of fuel economy
in recent years.

Add to that the demand for larger, heavier sport utility vehicles, and the result is the lowest
overall fuel economy in history, Maples said.

The average fuel economy among U.S. cars of all ages these days hovers around 22 miles per gallon,
according to the U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal Highway Administration. For new cars,
the fuel-economy average jumps to about 24.5 miles per gallon.

"From 1990 to 2000, there was scarcely any increase in fuel economy," said Geoff Sundstrom of the
American Automobile Association. "That had a lot to do with the emergence of trucks and SUVs as
America's best-selling vehicles."

For many consumers, Sundstrom said, the larger vehicles are necessary.

"Sometimes, an SUV is the only logical choice," he said. "SUVs have been demonized lately for their
low fuel mileage, but the reality is for many families, they take the place of a station wagon."

The largest of the SUVs may have already seen their heyday, even if that won't mean much to the
average driver. Consumers were beginning to abandon the largest trucks even before the preamble to a
U.S.-led war with Iraq made headlines, Smith said.

"I wouldn't call it a backlash, but people are certainly pulling away," Smith said. "If I can get
the kind of utility I'm looking for in a more efficient package, why wouldn't I want to?"

Among the hottest SUVs right now, at least in terms of buzz, are the Infiniti FX45, the Volvo XC90
and the Acura MDX. All three are based on car platforms and get close to 20 miles per gallon in
mixed driving.

Commitment to the SUV , however, will keep fuel-economy levels flat for the next five to 10 years,
according to EIA forecasts. Then, they may turn upward.

That's a little late for U.S. consumers, who are facing record-high gasoline prices these days, as
the national average fuel economy may have hit its nadir.

Conservation Takes A Back Seat The American Automobile Association, which issues a daily report
on U.S. fuel prices, said Thursday the national average price of regular gasoline at the pump
was $1.67 a gallon, slightly below the record high of $1.72 set March 18.

"We were pretty spoiled in the '90s," said EIA analyst John Cogan. "We had relatively low energy
prices in the last decade."

But prices at the pump and overall fuel economy just won't have that much pull on gasoline demand,
said Maples. It takes too long for new cars to raise overall fuel economy to create a true
inflection point in gasoline demand, he said.

"If you want to save fuel immediately, you have to just stop driving or use blended fuels, such as
with ethanol," Maples said.

Fuel additives such as ethanol extend gasoline supply by increasing the total amount of blended
gasoline produced. While some states such as California - the largest gasoline-consuming state - are
switching to ethanol from methyl tertiary butyl ether as an additive, only a nationwide adoption of
ethanol in gasoline would bring immediate, substantial savings, Maples said.

Drivers will continue lining up at the pumps, and many won't be in brand-new economy cars,
analysts said.

"When gas prices go up, we (gripe) and moan and cry, but we pay it," said Smith, of Motor Trend.
"It doesn't take a big move to get people griping, but it takes a big move to get them to change
their habits."

-By Roy R. Reynolds, Dow Jones Newswires; 713-547-9208; [email protected]

Updated March 27, 2003 3:41 p.m.

"Don Quijote" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> STUPID UNNECESSARY VEHICLES
>
> This is an interview with Brutus Maximus, who drives an SUV...
>
> Reporter: What do you need that for?
>
> Brutus: I wanna be noticed...
>
> Reporter: Do you realize that you threaten the environment, others on the road as well as make
> wars for oil necessary?
>
> Brutus: Listen, I pay taxes so I don't care. Besides the war makes a nice TV show. It goes well
> with beer...
>
> Reporter: What do you think of a place like Holland where people get around by bicycle?
>
> Brutus: I take my bicycles in the back of my SUV, so what's the point?
>
> Reporter: What do you do with your spare time?
>
> Brutus: I drive the SUV...
>
> Reporter: Do you ever read?
>
> Brutus: Nah, I don't like to waste my time...
>
> Reporter: What do you think of the future of the world?
>
> Brutus: I never think about it...
>
> Reporter: Why do you fly an oversized American flag on your vehicle?
>
> Brutus: It makes me feel like a patriot...
>
> Reporter: Do you know that the whole world opposes the war?
>
> Brutus: Remember, they are a bunch of anti-Americans losers...
>
> Reporter: Any message for the troops?
>
> Brutus: Yeah, I want more shots of the Hummers hunting the enemy. Hit 'em hard!God Bless
> America!!!
>
> http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
 
Duh! Because when one needs to carry eight they can do it in one vehicle rather than two.

mike hunt

Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
> On Tue, 08 Apr 2003 16:00:22 GMT, [email protected] wrote: AN SUV with eight people uses
> less gas than two cars with eight people, what's your point?

> >The same number of small car that carry four
>
> So why did you even make the claim?
> --
> Brandon Sommerville remove ".gov" to e-mail
>
> Give a man fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of
> his life.

AN SUV with eight people use less gas than two cars with eight people, what's your point?
 
[email protected] wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> AN SUV with eight people use less gas than two cars with eight people, what's your point?

14mpg/8 passengers

2 x 30mpg/4 passengers

Better whip out your calculator, Sonny.

Spider
 
[email protected] wrote:
>
> Since larger vehicles are definitely safer for properly belted passengers, according to the NHTSA,
> shouldn't the government ban smaller vehicles in the name of safety rather than attempting to ban
> the large safer vehicles because of fuel consumption?

The government isn't attempting to ban anything.

Assume everyone drove the exact same kind of vehicle. Then no one would have a relative safety
advantage or disadvantage with respect to any other passenger vehicle. If that standardized vehicle
were a small car, then everyone would have a relative safety disadvantage with respect to large
trucks and other commercial vehicles. But accidents between passenger cars and large trucks account
for a very small percentage of highway fatalities and injuries.

> Particularly when the owners are more than willing to pay the cost of operating their larger safer
> vehicles?

But they're NOT willing to pay the full cost. That's why there has been political pressure brought
to bear on insurance companies not to raise premiums for large SUVs, despite the fact that the
things are lethal to smaller cars. It also is well established that no one in the U.S. pays anything
close to the full social cost of gasoline consumption, when that social cost takes environmental
damage into account.

Finally, drivers of huge SUVs do not pay one cent of the cost of the increased danger they pose to
smaller vehicles.

If you're going to chew on that red herring of the greater safety of large vehicles, why don't you
propose that the government require that everyone drive nothing smaller than a cement truck?
 
On Tue, 08 Apr 2003 16:50:15 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

>Duh! Because when one needs to carry eight they can do it in one vehicle rather than two.

For this to have any relevance at all, you need to somehow demonstrate that carrying 8 people on a
regular basis is something that the big SUVs do. Otherwise you're talking pure extreme
hypotheticals.
--
Brandon Sommerville remove ".gov" to e-mail

Give a man fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life.
 
[email protected] wrote:
>
> AN SUV with eight people use less gas than two cars with eight people, what's your point?

A big disgusting rapacious SUV seldom if ever carries 8 people. 99% of the time, it's a housewife
with two small kids and a couple of sacks of groceries, a load easily accommodated by a VW Jetta
wagon or something similar.

I'll bet you can count on one finger the number of times you've seen a big disgusting rapacious SUV
with more than 4 people in
it.
 
[email protected] wrote:
>
> Duh! Because when one needs to carry eight they can do it in one vehicle rather than two.

You've never seen a big disgusting rapacious SUV with 8 people in it in your life.
 
"Jonathan Ball" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > AN SUV with eight people use less gas than two cars with eight people, what's your point?
>
> A big disgusting rapacious SUV seldom if ever carries 8 people. 99% of the time, it's a housewife
> with two small kids and a couple of sacks of groceries, a load easily accommodated by a VW Jetta
> wagon or something similar.
>
> I'll bet you can count on one finger the number of times you've seen a big disgusting rapacious
> SUV with more than 4 people in
> it.
>

I'd say that 99% of the time, there's one person in the SUV. There aren't even kids. Most people buy
an SUV for the one trip they take per year when they have the family, the dog, and the parents. The
rest of the time, there's one person in the vehicle.

--
Bob ctviggen at rcn dot com
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

> Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 08 Apr 2003 14:50:48 GMT,
[email protected] wrote:
> >
> > >AN SUV with eight people use less gas than two cars
with
> > >eight people, what's your point?
> >
> > And what percentage of SUVs actually carry 8 people?

> The same number of small car that carry four

Actually, most SUVs seat four people comfortably, the same as most cars. Only the largest SUVs have
had third row seats until recently, when they've started to appear in Explorer-sized vehicles.
Minivans get better mileage than large SUVs, and have a lot more room than mid-sized ones.

But that's splitting hairs. The real problem is that most SUVs, whether small, medium or large,
usually carry no more than one person. And that's incredibly wasteful.

Matt O.
 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> Then you better check again. All cars and light trucks must meet the same EPA standards. Many SUV
> even use the same engines as cars.

Nope. LT's under 8500lb GVW CAFE average requirement is 20.7 mpg. Cars are 27.5. I believe the
pollution requirements might be the same though. However larger ones >8500lb, which include many of
the 250 and 350 pickups, along with the Excursion and Suburban, have no mileage requirements.

...

> > All passenger cars regardless of power output must meet the same standards with regard to
> > emissions. Light trucks have a > lesser standard last I checked.
>

--
David Kerber An optimist says "Good morning, Lord." While a pessimist says "Good Lord,
it's morning".

Remove the ns_ from the address before e-mailing.
 
What difference does it make how often they need to carry more than four people? The fact is they
can when, when needed. How can you possibly know what owners of an SUV need their vehicle to do? If
you don't need an SUV, don't buy one WBMA. What makes you think it is your business what others need
and can afford? Get a life.

mike hunt

Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
> On Tue, 08 Apr 2003 16:50:15 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >Duh! Because when one needs to carry eight they can do it in one vehicle rather than two.
>
> For this to have any relevance at all, you need to somehow demonstrate that carrying 8 people on a
> regular basis is something that the big SUVs do. Otherwise you're talking pure extreme
> hypotheticals.
> --
> Brandon Sommerville remove ".gov" to e-mail
>
> Give a man fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of
> his life.
 
Do you follow 'most people' around every day to know that to be a fact? Envy is one of the
mortal sins. LOL

Bob wrote:
>
> "Jonathan Ball" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > [email protected] wrote:
> > >
> > > AN SUV with eight people use less gas than two cars with eight people, what's your point?
> >
> > A big disgusting rapacious SUV seldom if ever carries 8 people. 99% of the time, it's a
> > housewife with two small kids and a couple of sacks of groceries, a load easily accommodated by
> > a VW Jetta wagon or something similar.
> >
> > I'll bet you can count on one finger the number of times you've seen a big disgusting rapacious
> > SUV with more than 4 people in
> > it.
> >
>
> I'd say that 99% of the time, there's one person in the SUV. There aren't even kids. Most people
> buy an SUV for the one trip they take per year when they have the family, the dog, and the
> parents. The rest of the time, there's one person in the vehicle.
>
> --
> Bob ctviggen at rcn dot com
 
Your premise is flawed. Even this thread proves there are those that oppose the right of people to
buy what the want, need and can afford. There is an attempt by the likes of 'Public Citizen,' Ralph
Nader, Joan Clayberg and the other environuts to restrict the sale of larger vehicles by their
recent efforts to force the Congress to raise the CAFE of light trucks. If you knew anything about
CAFE and its effect on retain vehicle sales you would know that buyers of larger vehicles do in fact
subsidize the selling price of smaller vehicles to support CAFE and have for years. If you don't
like SUV's don't buy one, but let other buy what they want.

mike hunt

Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > Since larger vehicles are definitely safer for properly belted passengers, according to the
> > NHTSA, shouldn't the government ban smaller vehicles in the name of safety rather than
> > attempting to ban the large safer vehicles because of fuel consumption?
>
> The government isn't attempting to ban anything.
>
> Assume everyone drove the exact same kind of vehicle. Then no one would have a relative safety
> advantage or disadvantage with respect to any other passenger vehicle. If that standardized
> vehicle were a small car, then everyone would have a relative safety disadvantage with respect to
> large trucks and other commercial vehicles. But accidents between passenger cars and large trucks
> account for a very small percentage of highway fatalities and injuries.
>
> > Particularly when the owners are more than willing to pay the cost of operating their larger
> > safer vehicles?
>
> But they're NOT willing to pay the full cost. That's why there has been political pressure brought
> to bear on insurance companies not to raise premiums for large SUVs, despite the fact that the
> things are lethal to smaller cars. It also is well established that no one in the U.S. pays
> anything close to the full social cost of gasoline consumption, when that social cost takes
> environmental damage into account.
>
> Finally, drivers of huge SUVs do not pay one cent of the cost of the increased danger they pose to
> smaller vehicles.
>
> If you're going to chew on that red herring of the greater safety of large vehicles, why don't you
> propose that the government require that everyone drive nothing smaller than a cement truck?
 
On Tue, 08 Apr 2003 20:22:26 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

>What difference does it make how often they need to carry more than four people? The fact is they
>can when, when needed. How can you possibly know what owners of an SUV need their vehicle to do? If
>you don't need an SUV, don't buy one WBMA. What makes you think it is your business what others
>need and can afford? Get a life.

Hey, you brought it up. Apparently you didn't have a point, which is pretty much what I though. Nice
of you to confirm it for me though.
--
Brandon Sommerville remove ".gov" to e-mail

Give a man fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life.
 
[email protected] wrote:
>
> In the end doesn't it all come down to the fact that, in a free society, we should all be able to
> buy what we want, need and can afford?

Only within limits. A person might decide they "want, need and can afford" a Peterbilt sleeper cab
to run to the magazine store. To you, that may seem reasonable. To me, the negative effects on
others are too great to permit that.

> Should it be somebody else right to make you buy what they think you want, need and can afford? I
> think not.

There should be limits. In fact, there _are_ limits, and they get set partly as a result of public
discussion - which is what we're having now. My sense is that the limits will (correctly) be set
tighter in the future.

--
Frank Krygowski [email protected]
 
[email protected] wrote:

>Then you better check again. All cars and light trucks must meet the same EPA standards. Many SUV
>even use the same engines as cars.

None use an engine tuned the same as a car. General layout? Sure. The exact same engine? No way.

Marc For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
 
W K wrote:
>
> "Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > W K wrote:

> > > However, recently a long trip+business with hours at 80-90mph I did
> manage
> > > to get 40mpg.
> >
> > ********.
>
> Have you any experience of a small and spartan stickshift with a modern economical engine at 80-90
> mph? Damn sure that you haven't. You seem not to know where its possible to go at 85mph for 2
> hours anyway.

Oh good grief. Talk about clutching at straws!

Sorry, WK, you're wrong yet again. And again.

--
Frank Krygowski [email protected]
 
Face it, Stupid Urban Vehicles are MOSTLY about image, and that image is created and endorsed by the
slick marketing departments and production experts to fool normal Americans into buying whatever is
the latest motor fashion "trend". They have definite short-sides including the well-known effects
due to their bumper height, high center, primitive truck chasis/suspension, frequency of being
driven by mindless trophy wives, and traffic vision-impairment, etc. But, hey, as long as you look
cool and all your friends say, "Ooh, ahh!", you're in for a mortgage. Now, I support everyone's
right to have what they want, as long as it's safe and legal (wink, wink). I just think the most of
you have been swindled.

To give you one example, I (had) a friend who owned a certain Japanese SUV with a V-8 and full
luxury appointments whose monthly note and fuel costs caused her to pinch and save at every turn.
Being a beginning cyclist and ex-fatty (thanks to bicycling, btw), she wanted to stay fit during
winter, but couldn't 'cause she couldn't afford a) a trainer or even b) a headlight for her bike,
but she could afford that (?) $25-30,000 SUV, to go along with her $120K condo. Why? Priorities, I
guess, but I figure she was sold a bill of goods, so to speak. She could've been driving a nice,
gently used, $10-15,000 sedan and saving for retirement, but her ego wouldn't let her. She could
even have driven this pig conservatively but she was always motoring the behemoth at 70-80mph in
60mph traffic and beyond on the highway. This is what I see going on between people and the Big-8
(or so), and it's not just this one example, btw.

Robin Hubert
 
Status
Not open for further replies.