SUV's



Status
Not open for further replies.
A number of auto reviewers noted that the standard tires on the Echo were too narrow. My friend
simply upgraded them with good results. .

"Carl Sundquist" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > 106,000 on a KIA must be a record of some sort. A friend of mine just bought an Echo--he tells
> > me that if you put on a slighly wider set of
> tires
> > the milage gets even better along with the handling.
> >
> > Brian
> >
>
> If he just bought it, why is he already putting wider tires on it? Is he
in
> high school?
 
"Kiem Madvanen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Danny Callen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
>
> > I now drive an Acura MDX which gets 25 MPG and is an "Ultra Low Emission Vehicle".
>
> 17/23 MPG EPA (from Acura web site)
>
> I have yet to meet an SUV owner who doesn't overstate MPG.
>
> Zub
>

Would you like to try to explain how those numbers are calculated and maybe give us all a class on
statistics? I assume the statiscal yield for the Acura MDX gives an average of 23/17 as listed on
the specs and stricker. However, I can get 23 MPG on the interstate at 85 MPH. I average about 22
combined including stop and go traffic, city driving, and highway. How do I know? I have an on board
computer which calculates the MPG and have checked it more than once with hand calculations. My wife
has a Mini Van and I blow her away on MPG. It's called an excellent design.

The bottom line is that the article is written by an ignorant liberal who has an agenda. (No I'm not
saying all liberals are ignorant). People who buy into emotional feelings by those that manipulate
data to drive a cause are ignorant of the real facts. If you care to be one of the manipulated,
enjoy. I will continue to use fact in my decsions.

BTW, I can't help that there are a large majority of SUV's in the US. It's called "choice". I chose
to spend the extra $$ to get an SUV that has incredible specifications including MPG. Your beat up
old untuned jalopy has a much greater environmental impact than my clean running SUV. When the
statistical numbers are high (ie: large number of SUV's on the road), the attention by those
against them is drawn. The large numbers of SUVs sold in the US also disproves the idiotic article.
I guess a large percentage of Americans are just as the article states. It makes no sense folks..

Danny Callen
 
"Ken Papai" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<h6pT9.3689$%n.603@sccrnsc02>...
>
> Like my current '84 Jetta with roof racks already been ripped off by a low motel overhang after a
> mind-numbing personal finish at Pine Flats RR.

This seems to be a recurring theme and I've had my run-in with a low hanging garage and a roof rack.
I came to a stop and sneezed. took my foot off f the brake and coasted into the overhang at 1 mph.
$2K damage to the bike, rack and BMW that belonged to someone else.

I noticed that the pros are a bit smarter. They seem to have these racks that are fork-lock racks
but mount on the trunk instead of the roof. I can't figure out why no one is making these things for
the unwashed masses. One I saw easily carried three bikes though you had to put the front wheels in
the trunk.
 
In article <[email protected]>, Howard Kveck
<[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> (McCoughan) wrote:
>
> > lol.. "www.trafficshool.com" - I'm sure I'll be there soon enough!
> >
> > I understand his feeling - I became really interested in a WRX after driving in a friends. I was
> > amazed when I switched to the sporty WRX from a Nissan Pathfinder- I actually enjoy driving now.
> > While I dont drive too dangerously, its great to drive a responsive and fast car..
> >
> > I've really gotten into my subaru - I've turned into a bit of a WRC rally geek now!! I wont
> > stray from the thread too much, but you may like these: http://www.wrc.com/
> > http://rally.racing-live.com/en/ http://www.i-club.com/
> >
>
>
> A friend told me that there are versions of the WRX in Japan that have different engines and
> transmissions, which are far more sport oriented than the ones we can get in the USA. He knows
> someone in Milpitas, Calif. who could get one of the engine/tranny sets for him...

Sounds like he is referring to the "276 hp" (probably a deceptively _low_ rating) STi (not STI)
version of the WRX. STi is Subaru's equivalent of Honda's "Type-R" or Nissan's "Nismo" division.

Make mine a 4-door wagon, all the better to sneak around with.

Everything I needed to know I learned from Gran Turismo,

--
Ryan Cousineau, [email protected] http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club
 
Hi, Howard. Check out the January, 2003 issue of Road & Track, page 80.

Howard Kveck wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> (McCoughan) wrote:
>
>
>>lol.. "www.trafficshool.com" - I'm sure I'll be there soon enough!
>>
>>I understand his feeling - I became really interested in a WRX after driving in a friends. I was
>>amazed when I switched to the sporty WRX from a Nissan Pathfinder- I actually enjoy driving now.
>>While I dont drive too dangerously, its great to drive a responsive and fast car..
>>
>>I've really gotten into my subaru - I've turned into a bit of a WRC rally geek now!! I wont stray
>>from the thread too much, but you may like these: http://www.wrc.com/
>>http://rally.racing-live.com/en/ http://www.i-club.com/
>>
>
>
>
> A friend told me that there are versions of the WRX in Japan that have different engines and
> transmissions, which are far more sport oriented than the ones we can get in the USA. He knows
> someone in Milpitas, Calif. who could get one of the engine/tranny sets for him...
 
"Ken Papai" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:h6pT9.3689$%n.603@sccrnsc02...
>
> "Bob Schwartz" <[email protected]...
> > Adam Hodges Myerson <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > It died at 106,000 miles. Overheated, blown engine. We just got a Toyota Echo, so now I can be
> > > really self-righteous. (I do still have the '84
> diesel
> > > Merc.)
> >
> > First off, I have to complement the original poster on an exceptional troll. Well done!!
> >
> > A friend in the auto industry once told me that the environmentally responsible thing to do with
> > respect to cars was to drive whatever you had into the ground rather than create the demand for
> > another
>
> Like my current '84 Jetta with roof racks already been ripped off by a low motel overhang after a
> mind-numbing personal finish at Pine Flats RR.
>
> 192,000 miles (192K!) and still 30 miles/gallon.

I just laid my 1991 Mazda 323 Hatchback to rest after 203,400 miles with a blown head gasket. still
got over 30 miles to the gallon with a 4 carrier bike rack on top. Dave
 
Danny Callen wrote:
>
>
> Would you like to try to explain how those numbers are calculated and maybe give us all a class on
> statistics? I assume the statiscal yield for the Acura MDX gives an average of 23/17 as listed on
> the specs and stricker. However, I can get 23 MPG on the interstate at 85 MPH. I average about 22
> combined including stop and go traffic, city driving, and highway. How do I know? I have an on
> board computer which calculates the MPG and have checked it more than once with hand calculations.
> My wife has a Mini Van and I blow her away on MPG. It's called an excellent design.
>

Sure, I believe you as much as I believe your perceived "need" to drive an SUV.

> The bottom line is that the article is written by an ignorant liberal who has an agenda.

Seemed to me to be a fairly accurate picture of 99% of SUV buyers, liberal author or not.

>
> BTW, I can't help that there are a large majority of SUV's in the US. It's called "choice". I
> chose to spend the extra $$ to get an SUV that has incredible specifications including MPG. Your
> beat up old untuned jalopy has a much greater environmental impact than my clean running SUV.

That's pretty lame resorting to the old "Your beat up old untuned jalopy has a much greater
environmental impact than my clean running SUV" argument. How do you know he drives a jalopy?

> When the statistical numbers are high (ie: large number of SUV's on the road), the attention by
> those against them is drawn. The large numbers of SUVs sold in the US also disproves the idiotic
> article.

No, it proves that most US citizens are slaves to the "keep up with the Joneses" marketing of SUVs,
and for that matter many other things.

Greg

--
"Destroy your safe and happy lives before it is too late, the battles we fought were long and hard,
just not to be consumed by rock n' roll..." - The Mekons
 
In article <[email protected]>, "Danny Callen" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Kiem Madvanen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Danny Callen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> >
> > > I now drive an Acura MDX which gets 25 MPG and is an "Ultra Low Emission Vehicle".
> >
> > 17/23 MPG EPA (from Acura web site)
> >
> > I have yet to meet an SUV owner who doesn't overstate MPG.
> >
> > Zub
> >
>
> Would you like to try to explain how those numbers are calculated and maybe give us all a class on
> statistics? I assume the statiscal yield for the Acura MDX gives an average of 23/17 as listed on
> the specs and stricker. However, I can get 23 MPG on the interstate at 85 MPH. I average about 22
> combined including stop and go traffic, city driving, and highway. How do I know? I have an on
> board computer which calculates the MPG and have checked it more than once with hand calculations.
> My wife has a Mini Van and I blow her away on MPG. It's called an excellent design.
>

Your MDX may get fairly decent mileage, but the majority of SUVs really don't. Certainly the
Expeditions, HumVees and the rest like them don't. Hondas have always been pretty well thought
out and gotten good mileage.

> The bottom line is that the article is written by an ignorant liberal who has an agenda. (No I'm
> not saying all liberals are ignorant). People who buy into emotional feelings by those that
> manipulate data to drive a cause are ignorant of the real facts. If you care to be one of the
> manipulated, enjoy. I will continue to use fact in my decsions.

Isn't "marketing" another way of saying "manipulation of data"? There is a book out on this (the
SUV thing, that is), and the author got info from the NHTSB and various states. It showed that
they are not safer to themselves or other vehicles. There are more roll-overs (many from what
they called "tripping" - hitting a curb or bump while turning, resulting in the SUV going over),
and also a far higher percentage of serious neck injuries. A car being hit by a heavier and
generally higher SUV reieved much more damage than if it was hit by another car.

>
> BTW, I can't help that there are a large majority of SUV's in the US. It's called "choice". I
> chose to spend the extra $$ to get an SUV that has incredible specifications including MPG. Your
> beat up old untuned jalopy has a much greater environmental impact than my clean running SUV.
> When the statistical numbers are high (ie: large number of SUV's on the road), the attention by
> those against them is drawn. The large numbers of SUVs sold in the US also disproves the idiotic
> article. I guess a large percentage of Americans are just as the article states. It makes no
> sense folks..
>
> Danny Callen

The large numbers of SUVs sold in the US certainly says that the manufacturers have learned their
marketing lessons. Most of the mid-size and large SUVs are based on an existing truck platform.
They add $2000 to $2500 of extra bodywork and interior bits, generally spruce the thing up and
then they can sell them for $5000 to $10000 more than the original platform. GM and Ford do make
a lot of money on their SUVs because of this. So it is in their interest to push them in the
market. Your MDX is an exception to the general rule re: SUVs. But it's based, I believe, on the
Honda Odysey minivan.

That is all...

--
tanx, Howard

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, k?

For some people, quantity IS quality...
 
"Danny Callen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> "Kiem Madvanen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Danny Callen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> >
> > > I now drive an Acura MDX which gets 25 MPG and is an "Ultra Low Emission Vehicle".
> >
> > 17/23 MPG EPA (from Acura web site)
> >
> > I have yet to meet an SUV owner who doesn't overstate MPG.
> >
> > Zub
> >
>
> Would you like to try to explain how those numbers are calculated and maybe give us all a class on
> statistics? I assume the statiscal yield for the Acura MDX gives an average of 23/17 as listed on
> the specs and stricker. However, I can get 23 MPG on the interstate at 85 MPH. I average about 22
> combined including stop and go traffic, city driving, and highway.

Isn't 25 greater than 23 or 22? A class in inequalities seems more appropriate.

Zub
 
> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

--B_3125063173_4263175 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit

On 1/10/03 12:58 PM, in article
[email protected], "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Ken Papai" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<h6pT9.3689$%n.603@sccrnsc02>...
>>
>> Like my current '84 Jetta with roof racks already been ripped off by a low motel overhang after a
>> mind-numbing personal finish at Pine Flats RR.
>
> This seems to be a recurring theme and I've had my run-in with a low hanging garage and a roof
> rack. I came to a stop and sneezed. took my foot off f the brake and coasted into the overhang at
> 1 mph. $2K damage to the bike, rack and BMW that belonged to someone else.
>
> I noticed that the pros are a bit smarter. They seem to have these racks that are fork-lock racks
> but mount on the trunk instead of the roof.

That¹s for going through the drive-thru...................

I can't figure out why no one is making these things for the
> unwashed masses. One I saw easily carried three bikes though you had to put the front wheels in
> the trunk.

--B_3125063173_4263175 Content-type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding:
quoted-printable

<HTML> <HEAD> <TITLE>Re: SUV's</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY> <FONT FACE=3D"Verdana">On 1/10/03 12:58
PM, in article 484e7721.0301101258.34= [email protected], "Tom Kunich"
<[email protected]&gt= ; wrote:<BR> <BR> <FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF">> "Ken
Papai" <[email protected]> w= rote in message <BR> >
news:<h6pT9.3689$%n.603@sccrnsc02&gt;...<BR> </FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#008000">>> <BR>
>> Like my current '84 Jetta with roof racks already been ripped off = by<BR> >> a
low motel overhang after a mind-numbing personal finish at Pine = Flats RR.<BR> </FONT><FONT
COLOR=3D"#0000FF">> <BR> > This seems to be a recurring theme and I've had my run-in
with a low<B=
R>
> hanging garage and a roof rack. I came to a stop and sneezed. took my<=
BR>
> foot off f the brake and coasted into the overhang at 1 mph. $2K<BR> > damage to the bike,
rack and BMW that belonged to someone else.<BR> > <BR> > I noticed that the pros are a bit
smarter. They seem to have these<BR> > racks that are fork-lock racks but mount on the trunk
instead of the<B=
R>
> roof.<BR> </FONT><BR>
<H2>That’s for going through the drive-thru...................<BR> </H2><BR> <BR> <BR> <BR>
I can't figure out why no one is making these things for the<BR> <FONT
COLOR=3D"#0000FF">> unwashed masses. One I saw easily carried three = bikes though you
had<BR> > to put the front wheels in the trunk.<BR> </FONT></FONT> </BODY> </HTML>

--B_3125063173_4263175--
 
Here in the south, Volvos are up there with pickups on the public enemy list. I am not making this
up: Volvo drivers are among the most bike-hating people around. SUV's are in the middle somewhere.
But, SUV's and their drivers do suck, and they speed everywhere, and they do try to intimidate other
drivers. These observations are based on my 45,000 miles per year of driving (part of my job). I
have non-racing friends who have: an Excursion (Earth Destroyer 2000, according to a hilarious MadTV
skit), a Denali, a Suburban, and a bunch of rollover specials (aka Explorers). My brother has the
biggest suburban model, with a the huge Diesel. All of these people meet the stereotype
descriptions. Two of my racing friends driver the monsters (Expedition, and ford F250 X cab with 5.4
L V8), though. They bought em to haul all their bike stuff. Being Masters racers, they take a dozen
wheels and two bikes a piece to our weekend wars. Greg Miller Driver of Dodge Gr Caravan, gets 20-25
MPG, and company car, gets 30 mpg
 
>What a bunch of total ********. What has this got to do with Bike Racing?
>
>Danny Callen
>
>

Hmmm...The article had plenty of stats. that were probably right on. The auto industry loves these
"it's all about me" pea brains who buy these SUVs...I especially love the Hummer commercials. People
actually fall for that ********.

If you can't see what this has to do with bike racing or at least riding in general, maybe you
better step away from the tube and brush up a little on independent thinking...cheers
 
Just some more info on who I support:

> >Every time you fill up the car, you can avoid
> putting more money into
> >
> >the coffers of Saudi Arabia. Just buy from gas
> companies that don't import
> >
> >their oil from the Saudis. Nothing is more
> frustrating than the feeling
> >
> >that every time I fill-up the tank, I am sending my
> money to people who
> >
> >are trying to kill me, my family, and my friends. I
> thought it might be
> >
> >interesting for you to know which oil companies are
> the best to buy gas
> >
> >from.
> >
> >
> >
> >Major companies that import Middle Eastern oil (f
> >
> >or the period 9/1/00 -
> >
> >8/31/01).
> >
> >Shell................ 205,742,000 barrels
> >
> >Chevron/Texaco....... 144,332,000 barrels
> >
> >Exxon /Mobil......... 130,082,000 barrels
> >
> >Marathon............. 117,740,000 barrels
> >
> >Amoco................ 62,231,000 barrels
> >
> >If you do the math at $30/barrel, these imports
> amount to over $18
> >
> >BILLION!
> >
> >Here are some large companies that do not import
> Middle Eastern oil:
> >
> >Citgo 0 barrels
> >
> >Sunoco 0 barrels
> >
> >Conoco 0 barrels
> >
> >Sinclair 0 barrels
> >
> >BP/Phillips 0 barrels
> >
> >Hess 0 barrels
> >
> >All of this information is available from the
> Department of Energy and
> >
> >can be easily documented. Refineries located in the
> U.S. are required to
> >
> >state where they get their oil and how much they
> are importing. They
> >
> >report on a monthly basis.
> >
> >Keep this list in your car; share it with friends.
> Stop paying for
> >
> >terrorism.............
> >
> >But to have an impact.
> >
> >we need to reach literally millions of gas buyers.

I buy my gas from Hess or BP

Bill C.
 
Adam Hodges Myerson <[email protected]> wrote
>when I finally get killed by a car on the road while I'm riding (and I'm quite certain it's
>inevitable) it'll probably be by someone in an SUV. Adam

Jazzy, First let me say I hope that never happens to you, but lets be realistic, the likleyhood that
you'd total the car over the car totaling you is probably very good. I base this solely on the
amount of "hardware" you've had "installed" over the years. you're body probably has more metal than
the SUV. FOCKER
 
We Canadians (aka Mexicans in snowsuits) do not pay $1.35/ gallon. We pay $2/gallon. Therefore,
doing the math, you'll see that I get about 28 mpg. Combine that with my inconsequential 5000
k/year, and I consider my impact on the environment to be significantly less negative than that of
the typical North American.

--
--------------------------
Andre Charlebois BPE, MCSE4.0, CNA, A+ webmaster for Triathlon New Brunswick www.TriNB.com "G.T."
<[email protected]> wrote in message news:Sb%[email protected]...
> Boyd Speerschneider wrote:
> > 600k * 0.6mile/k / $25 * $1.35 / gallon = 19.44miles per gallon.
> >
> > Exactly how is this an improvement over and SUV?
> >
>
> None over DC's Acura MDX. But twice that of the behemoths that get 8 to
10
> mpg.
>
> But my Escort got much better gas mileage than that. I don't know if there's a typo below but if
> there isn't Andre should be taking his Escort in to see what the problem is.
>
> Greg
>
> > "Andre Charlebois" <[email protected]> wrote in
> > news:[email protected]:
> >
> >
> >>Here's my way to defy this bleak SUV trend: 5000 k / year driving, mainly to races; highway
> >>driving - ford escort wagon $25 USD / 600 k at 90 kmh. 1997 model, with 40000 k on it. 20000 k /
> >>year riding, with about 5000 k commuting
> >>
> >>If more North Americans would follow this example, then we would have a very different society
> >>than the sorry excuse of one that we have now.
> >>
> >>
>
>
> --
> "Destroy your safe and happy lives before it is too late, the battles we fought were long and
> hard, just not to be consumed by rock n' roll..." - The Mekons
 
Andre Charlebois wrote:
>
> We Canadians (aka Mexicans in snowsuits) do not pay $1.35/ gallon. We pay $2/gallon. Therefore,
> doing the math, you'll see that I get about 28 mpg. Combine that with my inconsequential 5000
> k/year, and I consider my impact on the environment to be significantly less negative than that of
> the typical North American.

I consider my impact to be positive. If you feel all negative and stuff, you can just....
Well, you know.
 
"Top Sirloin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> I'd buy an SUV if they were lower and met passenger car safety standards.
Too
> bad Buick discontinued the Roadmaster wagon.

Funny, my sister sold hers to buy an Explorer. She still laments the switch...

...especially this week after suffering whiplash from being rear ended, in a vehicle that lacks
simple, impact-absorbing bumpers. All cars sold in the US have had these since the mid-70s, and
AFAIK, SUVs are still not required to.

Matt O.
 
On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 04:49:47 GMT, "Matt O'Toole" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Top Sirloin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> I'd buy an SUV if they were lower and met passenger car safety standards.
>Too
>> bad Buick discontinued the Roadmaster wagon.
>
>Funny, my sister sold hers to buy an Explorer. She still laments the switch...

I always thought they were a little big until I had kids. :) Now I want a Roadmaster sized
Subaru Legacy.

>...especially this week after suffering whiplash from being rear ended, in a vehicle that lacks
>simple, impact-absorbing bumpers. All cars sold in the US have had these since the mid-70s, and
>AFAIK, SUVs are still not required to.

Another example.

-Scott Johnson "There is nothing, I think, more unfortunate than to have soft, chubby, fat-looking
children who go to watch their school play basketball every Saturday and regard that as their week's
exercise."
- John F. Kennedy, 1962
 
Nope, starting in June, the US (!) gets the best WRXs. 2.5L, 300 hp, 300 lb/ft, and it looks like
the WRC, save the dual cowled hood.

Click on "STI" at http://impreza.subaru.com

The US will receive the fastest production WRXs ever, and Japan will still be driving around the
2.0L versions. Weird, but for once, the US gets the good stuff.

They just need to tweak that torque figure up to 500 or so to match the WRC :)

-60 in the low 3s would be pretty nice.

I'm thinking this STI will break the 5 second barrier anyway. Who knows what will happen when you
chip it...

Anyhoo, this is an obvious pre-emptive strike at the Mitsu Evo VIII coming soon. The Japanese
version of that will be 320hp, but the US version is slated to be "only" 280hp. So, it will be less
comfortable, harder to drive, slower, and it's been beat with an ugly stick (not that the WRX is the
prettiest car around -- see the Z for that). I think Subaru will win this round.

I still can't wait to see what Toyota gives us for the next-gen Supra. I have a friend with a '97
putting 430hp TO THE GROUND (dyno'd). The Engine is probably near 500hp. He's about to replace
his twin turbos with one big monster, and he should have 650hp. Holy **** that car is tunable --
and he can drive it daily. His mechanic's Supra ("S.W." in Austin) pulls 9.28 in the quarter, and
it's a totally streetable car, and the (102,000 mile) engine's never been cracked open. All this
for < $40K.

It amazes me that anyone buys domestic cars.

-Mike

Dan Spisak <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Hi, Howard. Check out the January, 2003 issue of Road & Track, page 80.
>
> Howard Kveck wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (McCoughan)
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>lol.. "www.trafficshool.com" - I'm sure I'll be there soon enough!
> >>
> >>I understand his feeling - I became really interested in a WRX after driving in a friends. I was
> >>amazed when I switched to the sporty WRX from a Nissan Pathfinder- I actually enjoy driving now.
> >>While I dont drive too dangerously, its great to drive a responsive and fast car..
> >>
> >>I've really gotten into my subaru - I've turned into a bit of a WRC rally geek now!! I wont
> >>stray from the thread too much, but you may like these: http://www.wrc.com/
> >>http://rally.racing-live.com/en/ http://www.i-club.com/
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > A friend told me that there are versions of the WRX in Japan that have different engines and
> > transmissions, which are far more sport oriented than the ones we can get in the USA. He knows
> > someone in Milpitas, Calif. who could get one of the engine/tranny sets for him...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.