STUPID UNNECESSARY VEHICLES

[Jonathan Ball]

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.

They don't even buy it for that reason. They buy it because they're stupid slaves to fashion, and
have more money than sense.

 

[Jonathan Ball]

[email protected] wrote:
>
> Your premise is flawed.

It isn't. You've only claimed it is, but without any support for your claim.

> Even this thread proves there are those that oppose the right of people to buy what the want, need
> and can afford.

I'm not one of them.

> 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.

I oppose CAFE at a basic level, but if you're going to have it, it should apply equally to all
categories of passenger vehicles.

> 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.

They're free to buy what they want, and I think they ought to be. But I think SUVs should be
punitively taxed. Tax policy as a way of encouraging and discouraging behavior is well established;
what do you think the mortgage interest deduction is?

 

[Jonathan Ball]

[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.

Sure. And if you kept a few sticks of dynamite in your garage, growing more unstable by the day,
you'd be prepared to remove a

your point?

> 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?

I'm not trying to tell them what they need and can afford. I'm trying to make it far more expensive
for them to afford something they already know they don't need.

In a perfect world, you could have a disgusting huge rapacious SUV, but the vehicle registration on
the thing would be at least $5000 dollars per year.

> Get a life.

I like mine.

 

[Jonathan Ball]

Matt O'Toole wrote:
>
> <[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.

The other real problem is the disgusting huge rapacious SUVs are a menace to people in normal cars.

 

[Jonathan Ball]

Robin Hubert wrote:
>
> Face it, Stupid Urban Vehicles are MOSTLY about image,

AT LEAST 99.99%.

> 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".

Well, that's the job of slick marketing departments, and I don't have a problem with that.

> 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

 

[P E T E F A G E]

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

That's incorrect. There are SUVs that use the same engine as cars.

 

[Jonathan Ball]

P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>
> "Marc" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[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.
>
> That's incorrect. There are SUVs that use the same engine as cars.

1. Name one.

2. Among huge disgusting rapacious SUVs like Excursions and Suburbans and Humshits? I doubt it.

 

[P E T E F A G E]

"Jonathan Ball" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
| P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
| >
| > "Marc" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[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.
| >
| > That's incorrect. There are SUVs that use the same engine as cars.
|
| 1. Name one.

ML430.

| 2. Among huge disgusting rapacious SUVs like Excursions and Suburbans and Humshits? I doubt it.

You need to work on your hysterical rhetoric a bit.

 

[Jonathan Ball]

P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>
> "Jonathan Ball" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> | P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
> | >
> | > "Marc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> | > news:[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.
> | >
> | > That's incorrect. There are SUVs that use the same engine as cars.
> |
> | 1. Name one.
>
> ML430.

Liar:

S430:Horsepower: 275hp @ 5750RPM Torque: 295lb-ft. @ 3000RPM Source:
http://www.autofan.com/review.asp?ID=448

S431:Horsepower: 268hp @ 5500RPM Torque: 288lb-ft. @ 3000RPM Source:
http://www.autofan.com/review.asp?ID=463

If you're going to lie, at least lie in such a manner that you

>
> | 2. Among huge disgusting rapacious SUVs like Excursions and Suburbans and Humshits? I doubt it.
>
> You need to work on your hysterical rhetoric a bit.

I'm satisfied with it as it is.

You need to work on your polemical lying a bit. It stinks.

 

[Brandon Sommerv]

On Wed, 09 Apr 2003 00:22:17 -0700, Jonathan Ball <[email protected]> wrote:

>Liar:
>
> S430:Horsepower: 275hp @ 5750RPM Torque: 295lb-ft. @ 3000RPM Source:
> http://www.autofan.com/review.asp?ID=448
>
>ML430:Horsepower: 268hp @ 5500RPM Torque: 288lb-ft. @ 3000RPM Source:
> http://www.autofan.com/review.asp?ID=463
>
>
>If you're going to lie, at least lie in such a manner that you

7 hp and lb-ft of torque is easily explained by a more restrictive exhaust in the ML.
--
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.

 

[Casey Stamper]

"Daniel J. Stern" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On Tue, 8 Apr 2003, Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
> > disgusting huge rapacious SUVs are a menace to people in normal cars.
>
> That depends upon your definition of "normal", I suppose.
>
> And you'd better get busy banning 18-wheel cargo trucks from the roads -- they are a menace to
> people in huge rapacious SUVs *and* passenger cars.
>
> DS
>
That's just stupid. 18-wheelers have a function. SUVs, with very few exceptions, do not - except as
commented on previously.

 

[Robin Hubert]

"Daniel J. Stern" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On Tue, 8 Apr 2003, Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
> > disgusting huge rapacious SUVs are a menace to people in normal cars.
>
> That depends upon your definition of "normal", I suppose.
>
> And you'd better get busy banning 18-wheel cargo trucks from the roads -- they are a menace to
> people in huge rapacious SUVs *and* passenger cars.
>

Yes, but they have more restrictions and are also necessary to the commerce and economy!
SUV's don't.

Robin Hubert

 

[Charles Soto]

In article <[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.
>
>
> mike hunt

Before you open your mouth, read the actual regulations:

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stds-ld.htm

Yes, "light light trucks" are lumped in with "cars," but *real* SUVs (not Hyundai Sonatas or Honda
CRVs) are HEAVY light trucks (heh, an oxymoron). That's defined as a vehicle over 6000lbs. GVWR (for
perspective, the "small" Chevy Suburban (1/2 ton) is 7000lbs. GVRW. The
3/4 ton is 8600lbs. so both are HEAVY light trucks). There are very different standards for the
classifications (about double the allowable total hydrocarbon emissions).

Charles

--
Charles Soto - Austin, TX *** 1979 KZ650, 1999 GSF1200S, DoD No. "uno"

("Meepmeep" is "rr," as in "roadrunner.")

 

[Brandon Sommerv]

On Wed, 09 Apr 2003 14:48:07 GMT, Charles Soto <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[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.
>>
>>
>> mike hunt
>
>
>Before you open your mouth, read the actual regulations:
>
>http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stds-ld.htm
>
>Yes, "light light trucks" are lumped in with "cars," but *real* SUVs (not Hyundai Sonatas or Honda
>CRVs) are HEAVY light trucks (heh, an oxymoron). That's defined as a vehicle over 6000lbs. GVWR
>(for perspective, the "small" Chevy Suburban (1/2 ton) is 7000lbs. GVRW. The
>3/4 ton is 8600lbs. so both are HEAVY light trucks). There are very different standards for the
> classifications (about double the allowable total hydrocarbon emissions).

Don't bother him with the facts, he's got his mind made up.
--
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.

 

[Mike S.]

"Daniel J. Stern" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On Tue, 8 Apr 2003, Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
> > disgusting huge rapacious SUVs are a menace to people in normal cars.
>
> That depends upon your definition of "normal", I suppose.
>
> And you'd better get busy banning 18-wheel cargo trucks from the roads -- they are a menace to
> people in huge rapacious SUVs *and* passenger cars.
>
> DS
>
Actually, most semi v. car accidents are caused by the car. Better to ban the cars.

Mike

 

[P E T E F A G E]

"Jonathan Ball" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
| P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
| >
| > "Jonathan Ball" <[email protected]> wrote in message
| > news:[email protected]...
| > | P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
| > | >
| > | > "Marc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
| > | > news:[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.
| > | >
| > | > That's incorrect. There are SUVs that use the same engine as cars.
| > |
| > | 1. Name one.
| >
| > ML430.
|
| Liar:
|
| S430:Horsepower: 275hp @ 5750RPM Torque: 295lb-ft. @ 3000RPM Source:
| http://www.autofan.com/review.asp?ID=448
|
| ML430:Horsepower: 268hp @ 5500RPM Torque: 288lb-ft. @ 3000RPM Source:
| http://www.autofan.com/review.asp?ID=463
|
|
| If you're going to lie, at least lie in such a manner that you

Before making yourself look like more of an idiot, you should do some more research:

"About a year after introducing the mid-sized, V6-powered ML320 sport-utility vehicle, Mercedes-Benz
followed with the V8-powered ML430. The ML430 packs the same 268 horsepower
4.3 litre V8 engine used in the E430 and S430 sedans - a relatively new powerplant that shares its
basic architecture with the 3.2 litre V6 including three-valves-per-cylinder and two sparkplugs
per cylinder."

http://www.canadiandriver.com/testdrives/99ml430.htm

"This engine, which also powers the E and M-class 430's so well, delivers a turbine-smooth 275 hp
and 295 lb-ft of torque, while delivering fuel economy on par or better than most V6
sport-utilities. "

http://www.automotive-review.com/s430.htm

Note that the ML 430 has amore restrictive exhaust, accounting for th eslight variance in
performance from the same engine.

More examples of SUVs that use the same engines as passenger cars available by request.

| > | 2. Among huge disgusting rapacious SUVs like Excursions and Suburbans and Humshits? I doubt
| > | it.
| >
| > You need to work on your hysterical rhetoric a bit.
|
| I'm satisfied with it as it is.
|
| You need to work on your polemical lying a bit. It stinks.

See above.

Cheers.

 

[Daniel J. Stern]

On Wed, 9 Apr 2003, Jonathan Ball wrote:

2> 7 hp and lb-ft of torque is easily explained by a more restrictive
3> exhaust in the ML.

> Who cares? The point is that one way or another, it's not the "same" engine.

Er...yeah, Jonathan. It is the same engine. A couple of feet of differently-bent exhaust pipework do
not constitute a different engine -- no way, nohow. If you intend to continue arguing to the
contrary, you will succeed only in making yourself look (more) ignorant (than you already have).

DS

 

[Jonathan Ball]

"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>
> On Wed, 9 Apr 2003, Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
> 2> 7 hp and lb-ft of torque is easily explained by a more restrictive
> 2> exhaust in the ML.
>
> > Who cares? The point is that one way or another, it's not the "same" engine.
>
> Er...yeah, Jonathan. It is the same engine. A couple of feet of differently-bent exhaust pipework
> do not constitute a different engine -- no way, nohow. If you intend to continue arguing to the
> contrary, you will succeed only in making yourself look (more) ignorant (than you already have).

You don't KNOW that the difference is accounted for by a different exhaust piping. You're
speculating, and you're doing so only to try to win a rhetorical point.

 

[Jonathan Ball]

Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
> On Wed, 09 Apr 2003 00:22:17 -0700, Jonathan Ball <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Liar:
> >
> > S430:Horsepower: 275hp @ 5750RPM Torque: 295lb-ft. @ 3000RPM Source:
> > http://www.autofan.com/review.asp?ID=448
> >
> >ML430:Horsepower: 268hp @ 5500RPM Torque: 288lb-ft. @ 3000RPM Source:
> > http://www.autofan.com/review.asp?ID=463
> >
> >
> >If you're going to lie, at least lie in such a manner that you

>
> 7 hp and lb-ft of torque is easily explained by a more restrictive exhaust in the ML.

Who cares? The point is that one way or another, it's not the "same" engine.

 

[Jonathan Ball]

Casey Stamper wrote:
>
> "Daniel J. Stern" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news[email protected]...
> > On Tue, 8 Apr 2003, Jonathan Ball wrote:
> >
> > > disgusting huge rapacious SUVs are a menace to people in normal cars.
> >
> > That depends upon your definition of "normal", I suppose.
> >
> > And you'd better get busy banning 18-wheel cargo trucks from the roads -- they are a menace to
> > people in huge rapacious SUVs *and* passenger cars.
> >
> > DS
> >
> That's just stupid. 18-wheelers have a function. SUVs, with very few exceptions, do not - except
> as commented on previously.

Huge disgusting rapacious SUVs have a function, but not one that requires that amount of mass.