Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

  • Thread starter Dianelos Georgoudis
  • Start date
This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.

"Brent P" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Bill Funk wrote:
> > On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:34:32 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
> > wrote:
> >
> >>In article <[email protected]>,
> >> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> > SUVs get 8mpg. Ya that's a good generalization. Keep'em coming.
> >>>>
> >>>> Actually, that's pretty accurate, if we're talking about the SUVs
that
> >>>SELL
> >>>> WELL. The ones that get good mileage are enough like cars that they
don't
> >>>> appeal to SUV buyers. -Dave
> >>>
> >>>My '01 V8 Grand Cherokee get's 23+. They sell pretty well, don't you
think?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Then my Mercedes gets 120 mpg.
> >
> > Ah, yes.
> > The standard Liberal resposte: "That can't be so, becasue it doesn't
> > adhere to my ideas."
>
> Don't you find it odd that Dr. Parker drives a MB, yet favors CAFE?
> What is MB's CAFE rating these days anyway?

I find everything about Lloyd odd. I'd killfile him if I didn't like
watching him squirm so much.


 
Aardwolf wrote:
>
> "Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
>
>
>>Not that simple. Nothing is utterly fair.
>
>
> All right, poor choice of words. But a whole lot more equitable than what we have
> now, that I'll stand behind.
>
>
>
>>Taxing gas is unfair to
>>people who live in rural areas and need to drive longer distances on
>>average.
>
>
> So is charging for gas, by that measure.

No, because people in the city tend to pay for other things instead of
transportation costs. If you tax only gasoline, you are unfairly
penalizing rural folks. If you also tax rides on mass transit, in
taxis, etc., then you might get closer to equitable, but you will never
be completely fair ... just too many variables involved.


Matt

 

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "CRWLR" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >"Dave C." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> > > CAFE has effectively limited the weight of passenger vehicles. CAFE
> >has
> >> > > been shown to cost lives for exactly this reason.
> >> >
> >> > This may be true, but CAFE has also saved lives, because forcing
> >vehicles
> >> > to use less fuel helps to reduce pollution, and thus fewer people
dying
> >> each
> >> > year
> >> > as a result of pollution-related illnesses. Most likely the lives
lost
> >by
> >> > one
> >> > thing are balanced by the other.
> >> >
> >> > Ted
> >>
> >> You trade large cars for larger trucks, and you think the net result is
> >less
> >> fuel burned? Here's a clue: if large cars were still unrestricted by
> >CAFE,
> >> those large cars would benefit from some of the same technology that
has
> >> allowed all vehicles (SUVs included) to pollute less, per gallon
burned.
> >> AND, the large cars would STILL get better MPG compared to the SUVs
that
> >> replaced them.
> >>
> >> In other words, CAFE has cost lives both by reducing weight of vehicles
> >AND
> >> by causing vehicles to burn MORE fuel, as many people are buying large
> >> trucks for the specific reason that they can not buy large cars
> >> ymore. -Dave
> >>
> >>
> >
> >You are entirely correct, except perhaps the cause and effect is slightly
> >different, or maybe I have another byproduct of CAFE to add.
> >
> >CAFE has taken buyers of cars and turned them into buyers of trucks. I
> >specifically remember the arguments of the early to mid '70s where
families
> >that wanted to drive around in Crown Victoria Stationwagons with 427 ci
> >engines were frowned upon to the point that Detroit stopped building
them.
> >It seemed to me at the time that the idea of people like Lloyd was that
if
> >we could get rid of the Crown Vic stationwagons, then we wouldn't have
> >problems associated with these kinds of cars. What people like Lloyd seem
ot
> >forget is that families need the space ot haul children and groceries,
and
> >getting rid of Crown Vics simply turned these buyers into SUV buyers.
They
> >were mini-van buyers, and even full sized van buyers for a few years. The
> >point is not the kinds of vehicles they bought, the point is that they
were
> >no longer buying cars, they bought trucks instead.
> >
> >When CAFE standards were dreampt up, it was thought that trucks were not
a
> >significant part of the automotive population, trucks were used for work,
> >not play.
>
> And we should have adjusted CAFE for trucks as they started being used as
cars
> are used.
>
>

No, because they are still trucks, and trucks that are used for commercial
applications and trucks that are used to ferry kids around town look exactly
the same, except the trucks that haul kids seldom have paint, cement,
wallpaper spackle, or other such splashes of the job all over the outside.

I think people with your agenda to abolish large passenger cars simply
failed to understand that the buyers were still out there even after the
products they wanted were not, and you failed to understand the automakers
would respond to the demand for large cars by giving us passenger trucks.
What you repeatedly fail to recognize is that people, families, want large
cars for whatever reason. You need to get these buyers into a vehicle that
is acceptable to them first, and acceptable to you second. If you don't like
the truck-based vehicles that consumers are going after today, then you need
to get them into the car-based vehicles of yesteryear. Or, you need to shut
up and leave people alone, and stop imposing your value system upon the rest
of society.




> >And certainly not for hauling families around town, let alone the
> >countryside. We didn't want or need to impose the same kinds of standards
on
> >truck as we developed for cars because the things that make cars safer
make
> >trucks weaker and more costly. Since truck buyers were working class
> >consumers, we didn't want to impose costly standards on them that didn't
do
> >anything to help the work they were doing.
> >
> >Obviously, truck buyers today are not the same as they were in the '70s
and
> >early '80s. But, a large part of this is because of people with an agenda
> >like Lloyd has. Since we have managed to push a huge segment of car
buyers
> >into the truck marketplace by eliminating the cars that people need and
> >want, then we have created a consumer that is forced to forgo safety and
> >economy for size. There have been significant improvements in engine
> >technology, and that 427 ci carburated engine of the '70s has gone from
> >giving 7 ~ 10 mpg to being capable of delivering 15 ~ 20 mpg. While still
> >short of the 40 ~ 60 mpg that Lloyd thinks is a reasonable figure, it is
> >double what we could get in years past.
> >
> >Another thing that Lloyd will never admit is the concept of Passenger
Miles
> >Per Gallon. If a car that can carry 2 passengers gets 30 mpg, then we
> >realize a PMPG of 60. That is, two people that go 30 miles on the same
> >gallon of gass go 60 PMPG. An SUV that gets 15 mpg, and is carrying 7
people
> >is getting 105 PMPG. This is a pretty good bargain, if you ask me. If a
car
> >that gets 30 mpg can carry 4 people, then it will deliver 120 PMPG, but
it
> >takes two of them to get the seven passengers where they need to go.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> But most SUVs are used for solo commuting (note how few of them can drive
in
> an HOV lane), or running errands. Buying an 8-mpg behemoth for the one
time a
> year you may need to carry 8 people, as I said earlier, is like buying a
Cray
> supercomputer for your desktop just in case you need to decrypt a message
from
> Andromeda.

I don't have any idea of what the guy or gal in the next lane was doing
before they got into the next lane, or after they get out of it.

I would agree that if I used an SUV the way I see many of them get used,
they don't make much sense. But, what if the time I see them is when they
are being used for the Exception Runs, instead of the Regular Use that the
buyer had in mind when they bought the SUV?


 
Dave C. wrote:
>>They are *EPA estimates* for those mileages.
>>Check with just about any magazine that does tests on such vehicles,
>>and you will find very few that actually match the EPA estimates.
>>Personally, I usually get from 10% to 20% better mileage than the EPA
>>estimates, depending on what I'm carrying, and type of road travelled.
>>
>
>
>
> That's odd. Every truck or SUV I've ever driven gets about 20% less than
> the EPA estimates, lightly loaded in mostly highway driving. In contrast,
> I've never driven a car that got less than the EPA estimates, most cars beat
> the estimate by at least 10%. -Dave
>
>

My Jeep Comanche consistently matched or exceeded the EPA estimate (it
got 24 mPG) and my Chevy K1500 doesn't quite match the EPA estimate (it
gets 16 and I think the EPA highway rating was 17 or maybe 18), but it
is off by only 10% or so. And most of that is because I've added a lot
of weight to it - fiberglass cap, receiver hitch, snowplow, running
boards, etc. It got close to the EPA highway rating when it was new and
before I added all the stuff.


Matt

 
Matthew Russotto wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Matthew S. Whiting <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I believe the stats would remain about the same, or improve a little as
>>some crashes are against moveable objects (telephone poles, sign posts,
>>etc.)
>
>
> Sign posts yield. Telephone poles essentially don't, at least at SUV
> size. And because the force is concentrated over a small area, they
> can be more dangerous than your standard bridge abutment.
>

Depends on the speed. Above about 35 MPH, an SUV size vehicle will snap
the average telephone pole clean off. I see it once or twice a year
around here. A heavier vehicle will snap the pole at a slower speed. A
2,000 lb. car would probably not fair well against a pole at anything
less than 50 MPH or better.


Matt

 

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:33:12 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
> >wrote:
> >
> >>>When CAFE standards were dreampt up, it was thought that trucks were
not a
> >>>significant part of the automotive population, trucks were used for
work,
> >>>not play.
> >>
> >>And we should have adjusted CAFE for trucks as they started being used
as
> cars
> >>are used.
> >
> >And what would the buyers have done then?
> >Gone to >8000lb trucks?
> >
> >You don't seem to want to let others do what they see as needed,
>
> No, there always have to be limitations, for the good of society.
>
> >instead wanting to decide for everyone what they should have.
> >Why should you get to do that?
> >Maybe you should look into moving to China or Cuba, where your talents
> >may actually be in demand. They are really into deciding how the
> >people should live there.
> >
> So you'd let people drive vehicles that pollute?

Maybe you should go after the polution and not the vehicle size.

Your railing against the Crown Victoria LTD stationwagons of yesteryear were
sized based arguments. You came along after the arguments started and went
after the pollution and gas guzzling issues. Eventually, Detroit stopped
building the Crown Victoria LTD and after a few years somebody offered up
the Mini Van. A few years after that, the SUV was born. Then the SUV concept
was applied to larger and larger platforms until we got the grandaddy of
behemoths, the Chevy Suburban. Now, you are going after the size again, and
the gas guzzling is an apparent afterthought.

You are part of the very problem you are complaining about, and this is the
problem you refuse to recognize.



 
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
>>
>>>"Daniel J. Stern" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
> news:<[email protected]>...
>
>>>>On 17 Oct 2003, Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The NHTSA study prove that the overall safety of SUVs is worse than of
>>>>>lighter passenger cars.
>>>>
>>>>Studies cannot prove or disprove. There are so many variables in data
>>>>sampling and collection and analysis and interpretation that all they can
>>>>do is suggest. They can strongly suggest, but they cannot prove. Any
>>>>reputable and ethical scientist will tell you this -- it's only the
>>>>political latchers-on who run around claiming to have a study "proving"
>>>>their agenda is correct.
>>>
>>>
>>>Large statistical studies do prove things beyond any reasonable doubt.
>>>Smoking is bad for your health. So, is seems, is driving a SUV.
>>>
>>>This study basically counts how many people have been killed in
>>>traffic accidents in the real world. It clearly shows that, per mile,
>>>more people are killed in a SUV than in a car of slightly less weight,
>>>or even of considerable less weight.
>>>
>>>It is well known that SUVs are more expensive than cars (just see the
>>>profit margin of automakers when they sell a SUV as compared to a
>>>passenger car), so the net result is that, on average, people who buy
>>>a SUV spend more to drive a vehicle that is less safe.
>>>
>>>Also I don't see where the "political agenda" comes into this
>>>discussion. People are being deceived into buying SUVs for their
>>>perceived safety, and this is wrong.
>>
>>Who is deceiving them? I don't recall seeing many ads claiming that
>>SUVs are safer than cars.
>>
>>
>>Matt
>>
>
> Sure, just like Bush never came out and SAID Saddam was responsible for 9/11.

I'm sorry you are so gullible.

Matt

 
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Aardwolf <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>
>>>And the simple solution is to raise the truck CAFE, as the car CAFE has
>>
> been
>
>>>several times, or better yet, to have one CAFE for both cars and trucks.
>>
>>No the simple solution is to tax gas. Utterly fair, cost dependent on use,
>
> no
>
>>arbitrary restrictions as to which types of vehicles can and can't be
>
> produced.
>
>>Also the only real way to make people _want_ to use less fuel each and every
>>day. Wouldn't even need a huge one like in Europe, or any of thos e
>>double-jeopardy diplacement taxes either, just a moderate one like in
>
> Australia.
>
>>Unfortunately it won't fly.
>
>
> OK. You could also base car registration fees on gas mileage instead of
> value, as is done now in a lot of states.

Yep, and charge city dwellers what the true cost of mass transit is, not
the heavily subsidized cost.


Matt

 
C. E. White wrote:
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>
>>>Wellt here's one that gets below 10mpg that I can think of it that one
>>>just bearly sells at all.
>>
>>Suburban, Tahoe, Yukon, Hummer, Escalade, Escalade EXT, Escalade ESL, Hummer
>>H1, Hummer H2, Expedition, Excursion, Durango, Range Rover.
>>
>>Try looking at the real mpg reported in road tests.
>
>
> I don't know about all the vehicles on your list, but I do know that Expeditions
> get better than 10 mpg. I have owned 2 (1997 and 2003), both 4x4, 3.73 gears and
> 5.4L engines, and I have never gotten mileage as bad as 10 mpg. The 1997 averaged
> 15 mpg over 149,000 miles. The 2003 is averaging close to 16 over 35,000 miles. CU
> averaged 12 overall and 15 on their 150 mile trip. I have no idea what they did to
> claim an 8 mpg city average. I drive mine in bumper to bumper traffic 5 days a
> week and have never dropped below 14 mpg. Heck the 1997 averaged over 16 pulling a
> 24 foot sailboat down I-95.
>
> Ed
>

Virtually all car and truck magazines report much lower mileage than I
get for my vehicles. Same for my motorcycle. I can only assume they
are drive like maniacs. My Kawasaki Voyager averages 48 MPG and will
get 50-53 all day long on a road trip. Most bike mag tests yielded less
than 40. I've run it hard and cruised at 75 MPH across Kansas and never
got below 42. I don't think I could run it hard enough on the street to
get less than 40. Much the same for my cars. My Chrysler minivans get
21-24 in normal daily commuting. Most car tests get something in the
16-18 range. I can't even imagine how to drive my minivans hard enough
to get mileage that low ... maybe if I let them idle all day while we're
at work!


Matt

 


Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Lisa Horton <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Bill Putney wrote:
> >>
> >> Dave Milne wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I'd rather incompetents were banned full stop.
> >>
> >> Repeating what I put in another post, the liberals would *never* allow
> >> that. Can't you hear their reasoning now: "By keeping an incompetent
> >> driver off the road, you would in effect be punishing his/her innocent
> >> children. Therefore it would be better to let the incompetent parents
> >> continue to drive without restriction. A few more people might be
> >> killed as a result, but at least the innocent children would not be
> >> punished."
> >>
> >
> >Nonsense. I'm definitely liberal, or beyond, and I strongly support
> >tougher licensing requirements.
> >
>
> Of course, right-wing radicals like Putney and bin Laden just have to spew
> hatred.

How clever, Lloyd. I'm still reeling from that one. 8^)

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
 
C. E. White wrote:

>
> Lisa Horton wrote:
>
>
>>Quite true of course. But a moron in an econobox represents a much
>>smaller danger than a moron in a behemoth.
>>
>>Lisa
>
>
> Care to cite any proof of this? I see more moron driving econoboxes making
> unsafe maneuvers in traffic than I see morons doing the same in SUVs. Two times
> this morning alone, I saw small cars force there way from the extreme left lane
> into the extreme right lane to make a last minute exit. I saw no SUVs doing
> this. So I conclude econobox morons are for more dangerous than SUV morons.
> Prove me wrong.
>
> Ed
>
>

An SUV performing the same unsafe maneuver is far more hazardous to
surrounding traffic. Surely even you can see that?

nate

--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.

 


"Douglas A. Shrader" wrote:
>
> "Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Sure, just like Bush never came out and SAID Saddam was responsible for
> 9/11.
>
> That's true, he never once claimed that.

Yeah, but Lloyd thought it in his mind (funny how Bush, who is
supposedly dumb, is clever enough to make Lloyd, who is supposedly
brilliant, think things like that), so that makes it reality and
therefore Bush is guilty of it.

So, Lloyd, what about Sadam offering to and actually paying families of
homocide bombers as a reward? Does that make him a supporter of
terrorism and therefore a legitmate target in an all-out war on
terrorism? (Lloyd will come back with something suggesting that Bush is
evil and Sadam is good and innocent. Or he won't just to make me wrong;
but now he will because I said that; now he won't...)

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
 


CRWLR wrote:
>
> "Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > ...But most SUVs are used for solo commuting (note how few of them can drive
> in
> > an HOV lane), or running errands. Buying an 8-mpg behemoth for the one
> time a
> > year you may need to carry 8 people, as I said earlier, is like buying a
> Cray
> > supercomputer for your desktop just in case you need to decrypt a message
> from
> > Andromeda.
>
> I don't have any idea of what the guy or gal in the next lane was doing
> before they got into the next lane, or after they get out of it.
>
> I would agree that if I used an SUV the way I see many of them get used,
> they don't make much sense. But, what if the time I see them is when they
> are being used for the Exception Runs, instead of the Regular Use that the
> buyer had in mind when they bought the SUV?

You don't understand. Lloyd's used to seeing his elitist progressive
professor buddies driving their SUV's all over town, so he assumes
everyone else does that. Lloyd drives a Mercedes, so you can't accuse
him of that.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
 
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 19:06:45 -0400, Nate Nagel <[email protected]>
wrote:

>C. E. White wrote:
>
>>
>> Lisa Horton wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Quite true of course. But a moron in an econobox represents a much
>>>smaller danger than a moron in a behemoth.
>>>
>>>Lisa
>>
>>
>> Care to cite any proof of this? I see more moron driving econoboxes
making
>> unsafe maneuvers in traffic than I see morons doing the same in
SUVs. Two times
>> this morning alone, I saw small cars force there way from the
extreme left lane
>> into the extreme right lane to make a last minute exit. I saw no
SUVs doing
>> this. So I conclude econobox morons are for more dangerous than SUV
morons.
>> Prove me wrong.
>>
>> Ed
>>
>>
>
>An SUV performing the same unsafe maneuver is far more hazardous to
>surrounding traffic. Surely even you can see that?

Why do you assume that the econoboxes and the SUVs have the same
amount/type of safety equipment?

Do Yugos and Camrys (just picking two cars for this example) ahve the
same amount/type of safety equipment?

 
P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:

> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 19:06:45 -0400, Nate Nagel <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>C. E. White wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Lisa Horton wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Quite true of course. But a moron in an econobox represents a much
>>>>smaller danger than a moron in a behemoth.
>>>>
>>>>Lisa
>>>
>>>
>>>Care to cite any proof of this? I see more moron driving econoboxes
>
> making
>
>>>unsafe maneuvers in traffic than I see morons doing the same in
>
> SUVs. Two times
>
>>>this morning alone, I saw small cars force there way from the
>
> extreme left lane
>
>>>into the extreme right lane to make a last minute exit. I saw no
>
> SUVs doing
>
>>>this. So I conclude econobox morons are for more dangerous than SUV
>
> morons.
>
>>>Prove me wrong.
>>>
>>>Ed
>>>
>>>
>>
>>An SUV performing the same unsafe maneuver is far more hazardous to
>>surrounding traffic. Surely even you can see that?
>
>
> Why do you assume that the econoboxes and the SUVs have the same
> amount/type of safety equipment?
>
> Do Yugos and Camrys (just picking two cars for this example) ahve the
> same amount/type of safety equipment?
>

*sigh*

it has nothing to do with the amount of safety equipment and everything
to do with physics.

Is it not a fact that a SUV by necessity has a higher CG height to track
ratio and is therefore more likely to lose control? Is it not also a
fact that it has more mass, and therefore if it does lose control and
hit a nearby vehicle, it will do a greater amount of damage to the
vehicle and/or its occupants?

To respond you your non sequitur, no, they don't have the same safety
equipment as passenger cars in many cases. Often, a vehicle classified
as a light truck will have less/inferior safety equipment than a car, as
cars have more stringent safety standards. (this has been addressed
somewhat in recent years, however.)

Are you quite finished yet? Some of us would actually like to discuss
driving at some point.

nate

--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.

 

"CRWLR" <[email protected]> wrote

> getting rid of Crown Vics simply turned these buyers into SUV buyers. They
> were mini-van buyers, and even full sized van buyers for a few years. The
> point is not the kinds of vehicles they bought, the point is that they
were
> no longer buying cars, they bought trucks instead.


What you seem to need is a car that can carry as many and as much as a SUV.

Lobby GM to build LHD versions of the Commodore, Berlina, or Calais sedans
and stationwagons.

rhys


 
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 19:59:49 -0400, Nate Nagel <[email protected]>
wrote:


>>>An SUV performing the same unsafe maneuver is far more hazardous to
>>>surrounding traffic. Surely even you can see that?
>>
>>
>> Why do you assume that the econoboxes and the SUVs have the same
>> amount/type of safety equipment?
>>
>> Do Yugos and Camrys (just picking two cars for this example) ahve
the
>> same amount/type of safety equipment?
>>
>
>*sigh*

Why are you sighing? Is it another manifestation of your cluelessness?

>
>it has nothing to do with the amount of safety equipment and
everything
>to do with physics.
>
>Is it not a fact that a SUV by necessity has a higher CG height to
track
>ratio and is therefore more likely to lose control?

It depends upon which car is being compared to which SUV. Isn't that
obvious?

See my example above and substitute "car" for "SUV" in your inane
question above.

Is it not also a
>fact that it has more mass, and therefore if it does lose control and
>hit a nearby vehicle, it will do a greater amount of damage to the
>vehicle and/or its occupants?

"If it does lose control" <---key assumption. Apparently you think
that all SUVs are more likely to lose control than all cars. At least
that seems to be the assumption that you are working under based upon
your posts.

>To respond you your non sequitur, no, they don't have the same safety
>equipment as passenger cars in many cases. Often, a vehicle
classified
>as a light truck will have less/inferior safety equipment than a car,
as
>cars have more stringent safety standards. (this has been addressed
>somewhat in recent years, however.)

And what about the SUVs that have more safety equipment than some
cars? You just dismiss those, right? LOL.

>Are you quite finished yet? Some of us would actually like to
discuss
>driving at some point.

LOL. What a sad little whiner.

If you want to "talk about driving" your Stude go right ahead and
ignore other folks "talking" about driving SUVs.That is unless someone
is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to participate in
threads that don't meet your standards for a "driving" group,
hypocrite.

Your "this group is only about my flavor of driving " silliness is
very amusing though.

Thanks.


 
Most car magazine writers ohh and ahh about the power and performance when
around 4K revs etc... using higher revs to get better power, and less fuel
economy.
My 2.8 turbo Diesel has never been over 3.5K revs since I bought it, despite
HP peaking at approx 4.5K in the manufacturors brochure Dyno diagram, and
Torque at about 4K revs. 3K in 5th gear has more than enough power to pull
it and a trailer, both loaded with SCUBA gear up a steep hill.
Cars seem to peak at 5K revs, yet my mothers 3.8 V6 does 2.6K revs at 100KmH
in top gear.

Of course power mad journalists will report lower MPG's

rhys

"Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> C. E. White wrote:
> > Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>Wellt here's one that gets below 10mpg that I can think of it that one
> >>>just bearly sells at all.
> >>
> >>Suburban, Tahoe, Yukon, Hummer, Escalade, Escalade EXT, Escalade ESL,
Hummer
> >>H1, Hummer H2, Expedition, Excursion, Durango, Range Rover.
> >>
> >>Try looking at the real mpg reported in road tests.
> >
> >
> > I don't know about all the vehicles on your list, but I do know that
Expeditions
> > get better than 10 mpg. I have owned 2 (1997 and 2003), both 4x4, 3.73
gears and
> > 5.4L engines, and I have never gotten mileage as bad as 10 mpg. The 1997
averaged
> > 15 mpg over 149,000 miles. The 2003 is averaging close to 16 over 35,000
miles. CU
> > averaged 12 overall and 15 on their 150 mile trip. I have no idea what
they did to
> > claim an 8 mpg city average. I drive mine in bumper to bumper traffic 5
days a
> > week and have never dropped below 14 mpg. Heck the 1997 averaged over 16
pulling a
> > 24 foot sailboat down I-95.
> >
> > Ed
> >
>
> Virtually all car and truck magazines report much lower mileage than I
> get for my vehicles. Same for my motorcycle. I can only assume they
> are drive like maniacs. My Kawasaki Voyager averages 48 MPG and will
> get 50-53 all day long on a road trip. Most bike mag tests yielded less
> than 40. I've run it hard and cruised at 75 MPH across Kansas and never
> got below 42. I don't think I could run it hard enough on the street to
> get less than 40. Much the same for my cars. My Chrysler minivans get
> 21-24 in normal daily commuting. Most car tests get something in the
> 16-18 range. I can't even imagine how to drive my minivans hard enough
> to get mileage that low ... maybe if I let them idle all day while we're
> at work!
>
>
> Matt
>


 
P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:

> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 19:59:49 -0400, Nate Nagel <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>>An SUV performing the same unsafe maneuver is far more hazardous to
>>>>surrounding traffic. Surely even you can see that?
>>>
>>>
>>>Why do you assume that the econoboxes and the SUVs have the same
>>>amount/type of safety equipment?
>>>
>>>Do Yugos and Camrys (just picking two cars for this example) ahve
>
> the
>
>>>same amount/type of safety equipment?
>>>
>>
>>*sigh*
>
>
> Why are you sighing? Is it another manifestation of your cluelessness?
>
>
>>it has nothing to do with the amount of safety equipment and
>
> everything
>
>>to do with physics.
>>
>>Is it not a fact that a SUV by necessity has a higher CG height to
>
> track
>
>>ratio and is therefore more likely to lose control?
>
>
> It depends upon which car is being compared to which SUV. Isn't that
> obvious?
>
> See my example above and substitute "car" for "SUV" in your inane
> question above.

Your deliberate obtuseness is noted. I said *TO OTHER TRAFFIC.*
Therefore all the safety equipment in the world will not change the fact
that an SUV has greater mass and CG height.

>
> Is it not also a
>
>>fact that it has more mass, and therefore if it does lose control and
>>hit a nearby vehicle, it will do a greater amount of damage to the
>>vehicle and/or its occupants?
>
>
> "If it does lose control" <---key assumption. Apparently you think
> that all SUVs are more likely to lose control than all cars. At least
> that seems to be the assumption that you are working under based upon
> your posts.

Yes, and it's true quite a bit of the time. Even if you can cherrypick
some numbers that show slightly greater cornering ability for a given
SUV than some other particular car, that in no way negates that there
are still drawbacks in transient (i.e. real world) maneuvers
necessitated by the basic SUV shape.

>
>
>>To respond you your non sequitur, no, they don't have the same safety
>>equipment as passenger cars in many cases. Often, a vehicle
>
> classified
>
>>as a light truck will have less/inferior safety equipment than a car,
>
> as
>
>>cars have more stringent safety standards. (this has been addressed
>>somewhat in recent years, however.)
>
>
> And what about the SUVs that have more safety equipment than some
> cars? You just dismiss those, right? LOL.
>

Unless you're comparing vehicles at significantly different price
points, they're so rare that they effectively don't exist.

>
>>Are you quite finished yet? Some of us would actually like to
>
> discuss
>
>>driving at some point.
>
>
> LOL. What a sad little whiner.
>
> If you want to "talk about driving" your Stude go right ahead and
> ignore other folks "talking" about driving SUVs.That is unless someone
> is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to participate in
> threads that don't meet your standards for a "driving" group,
> hypocrite.
>
> Your "this group is only about my flavor of driving " silliness is
> very amusing though.
>

Where have I ever said that I insisted that my way was the only right
way? I enjoy autocrossing and also touring in old cars. That's two
flavors of driving. I can also respect and enjoy discussions of all
sorts of other driving - road racing, drag racing, off roading, rock
crawling, dirt track racing, even discussions of proper ways to drive on
public highways - and many more that I am neglecting to include.
However, I fail to see how your assertion that you bought an SUV because
you wanted the safest vehicle for your family a) makes sense or b)
belongs in a newsgroup about driving. The on-road-only, mega-buxx,
leather-trimmed and Wilton-carpeted SUV is the classic vehicle of people
who don't enjoy driving, and want to be insulated from the task of
driving as much as possible. How about rec.autos.dont-believe-the-hype?

> Thanks.
>

You're welcome.

nate

--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Defenders Vs Insurers tomfoolery
Replies
1
Views
4K
lightning
lightning
300bhp/ton
Driven: New Defender - On & Off Road. Is it a Pretender?
2
Replies
30
Views
6K
lightning
lightning
P
Range Rover P38 EKA and BeCM Lockout
Replies
6
Views
5K
Doolinjames
D
natas
Hurricane Dorian survivor.
Replies
8
Views
2K
ProjectX
ProjectX
Alibro
How to recondition a VCU yourself.
15 16 17
Replies
325
Views
47K
Alibro
Alibro
Back
Top