Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

Well, chaps, that's a timely note (about the Monaro). In last week's Sunday
Times, the UK's biggest selling quality Sunday paper, there was an item
about the Monaro and how it's going to become the Pontiac GTO.

Note that it was described as being of "old design, a relative of the Omega
saloon which disappeared from the price lists earlier this year...coming to
Britain [as] Vauxhall as a by-product of the decision to launch it in the
US...

"...GM sought a modern equivalent of its GTO and found this potent coupe
lurking at its Australian outpost. The Vauxhall Monaro will have the same
specs as the new GTO...5.7 litre engine V8... and six-speed manual gearbox
from the Chevrolet Corvette it is loud and fast (0 - 60 mph in 5.5 sec), yet
more civilised than its American predecessor, the Pontiac Firebird. At
present there is nothing quite like the Monaro available in Britain."

Price is GBP 32K for the 360 bhp LSI. The 320 bhp CV8 will cost about GBP
28 000.

"Coupes of equivalent size and performance are much more expensive --
....Merc CL and forthcoming BMW 6...Vauxhall led the UK car market with the
Corsa [note: a small car]. Whether it has raised its reputation enough to
sell a GPB 30K high-performance model remains to be seen."

Just in case you don't all know, Vauxhall is GM's brand. I wonder if it
will be launched on the Continent (as an Opel).

I guess the Monaro will sit in a separate market niche as Saab is supposed
to be up-market from Vauxhall/Opel. Saab cars are not that big though. The
most powerful engine is a 2.3 l turbo achieving 220 or 250 hp.


An additional point is in connection with criticisms elsewhere of designs
being 'pinched'. The big producers are global and would be foolish not to
pick designs from all over the place. That said, I am not sure that the US
companies 'pinch' enough from their overseas affiliates.


DAS
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"rnf2" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The 5.7L V8 is the latest descendant of the mighty Chevy smallblock 350ci.
>
> they can be modified to over 1000 Hp and still be drivable streetlegal.
>
> the 3.8 started as a USA GM engine, but a factory was built in Aussie and
> R&D changed it, it doesn't interchange well with stock USA GM parts that
> well now, but theres plenty of support in Aussie for them. the 5L and 5.7L
> are stock Chevys from Chevs plants in the states. plenty of parts if they
> bring Holdens stateside.
>
> rhys
>
> "Aardwolf" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> > rnf2 wrote:
> >
> > > Built in Australia, sold in Australia and New Zealand and a few other
> RHD
> > > countries.
> > > Smallest engine in one is 3.8L V6, and goes up to a 5.7L V8. and even
> the
> > > 3.8 can tow 2000Kg, or 4000+ pounds, V8 is up to 3500Kg or so, 7000+
> pounds.
> > > www.holden.com.au and www.ford.com.au
> > > They're big cargo haulers, and very popular with farmers, very
reliable
> and
> > > can take some pretty harsh terrain and climate without flinching.
> > > very popular with farmers, and can carry 8 people in the station
wagons.
> > > with a big boot (trunk) still.
> > >
> > > Commador is the entry level car, then the higher specced Berlina and
the
> > > luxary Calais.
> > > then comes the SS, and HSV performance cars.
> > >
> > > rhys
> >
> > Also sold in mid east countries as Chevrolets with left hand drive--in
any
> case
> > they use totally U.S. drivetrains (engines/transmissions) and can easily
> pass
> > U.S. safety requirements as well. The new Pontiac GTO is a Holden
Monaro
> coupe
> > with different badges. Thanks in large part to union interference
GM-U.S.
> keeps
> > refusing to import any more mainline sedan models, but they'd doubtless
> eat all
> > of the domestic competition as it is now. They'd be 350-horsepower
family
> > sedans for as little as $20K U.S.
> >
> > The Commodore line and variants come with Corvette engines of up to 350
> > horsepower (or just over 400 for the HSV-modified versions) and can
still
> touch
> > 30mpg (U.S.) on the highway with a 6-speed overdrive--or they can be had
> with
> > smaller V6 powerplants. The long-wheelbase Statesman (mid east
"Chevrolet
> > Caprice") would be a superb replacement for the last U.S. models of that
> name,
> > almost exactly the same size and layout, but incrementally improved
> (newer, even
> > more powerful engines, independent rear suspension, etc.).
> >
> > I believe the top-line HSV GTS is already sold in the U.K. as a counter
to
> the
> > BMW E5, and rumors keep popping up that one of the higher line Commodore
> models
> > (Calais most likely) might be introduced there as a replacement for the
> last
> > rear drive Opel Omegas.
> >
> > --Aardwolf.
> >
>
>

Like I said, the emissions are only soot. Amounts are falling. Proper
catalysts are on the way.

The other key toxins (oxides of nitrogen and sulfur) are gone.

DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Matthew Russotto" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

[.............]>
> Heard it before. It's clever not to count the emissions diesels put
> out (particulates), but it doesn't fool most people.
> --
.............

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
> "Bill Putney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
>
> > Gee - imagine that. Conservatives opposing the raising of taxes. How
> > unusual! Have you ever heard of such a thing!? To quote Mel Brooks:
> > "Wooof!".
> >
>
> Your the one that is bitching about allowing morons on the road
> because their children will be punished if they can't drive. Yet your
> now opposing one of the few mechanisms that we have to keep the
> morons off the road, which is making vehicle ownership more
> expensive? I guess you don't realize that most of the morons
> in the country don't happen to be that wealthy. (save the morons
> in the White House and Congress, of course)
>
> Ted

I did no such bitching. Re-read my post. There are quote marks around
the comments you are talking about - as in, that is what the liberals
would say if attempts were made to keep bad drivers off the roads
(paraphrasing the arguments they have made in the past about why
rewarding irresponsible people for pumping out babies, i.e., the career
welfare moms, had to continue). Some of your other comments in this
thread also make no sense in regards to anything I posted - maybe due to
the same mis-reading of what I posted.

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! =-----

You need another product from the DC Group:

http://www.mercedes-benz.com/omb/d/ecars/unimog/u3000u4000.htm

DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"rnf2" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Supermarket Warriors...
> i use mine to tow tons of metal around to spread on the farm tracks, loads
> of timber that would bust an ecnonboxes sustpension, even if it fitted int
> he back, and heavy metal SCUBA cylinders and lead weights. an entire clubs
> collection, totalling over 600 Kg of tanks and weights made a neglegible
> difference in fuel consumption.
>
> rhys
.....................................

P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:

> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 21:24:20 -0400, Nate Nagel <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>C. E. White wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Nate Nagel wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>An SUV performing the same unsafe maneuver is far more hazardous to
>>>>surrounding traffic. Surely even you can see that?
>>>
>>>
>>>No, I can't see it. This is the sort of drivel the anti-SUV crowd
>
> routinely repeats.
>
>>>Continulaly repeating an opinion does not make it a fact. PROVE IT!
>>>
>>>Ed
>>>
>>
>>They're heavier and don't handle as well. The conclusion should be
>
> obvious.
>
> Another gross generalization. That's why folks call you on this kind
> of drivel.

Show me some proof that my "gross generalization" is wrong.

>
>
>>I'm actually repressing the urge to launch into an Aunt Judy-esque
>
> rant
>
>>at this point.
>
>
> You and Judy and Carl Taylor, and sundry other clueless folks share
> the same trait actually.
>
> This frightens me. Why are concepts so obvious to
>
>>anyone with any grasp of physics or driving dynamics apparently so
>>obscure to the general public?
>
>
> When folks with a very good grasp of driving dynamics, car control,
> and physics (not to mention the fact that they have tens of thousands
> of miles in SUVs that don't fit into your strident little pidgeon
> hole) know that your gross generalizations are silly, you should start
> questioning your assumptions, lest you continue to be lumped in with
> the clueless trolls.
>
>
>>*bangs head on desk*
>
>
> It's apparently not helping your thought proccesses in the least bit.
>
> Try something different.
>
>

It may surprise you to learn that I've driven just about every SUV on
the market as of a year or two ago, on a test track no less. Are you
going to persist in calling me clueless with no proof, or are you going
to put up or shut up?

nate


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

RJ wrote:

> Nate Nagel <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Every time I hear
>>someone bitch that they spend $(something large) for a SUV because they
>>wanted to be safe, I wonder why they didn't spend the same money for a
>>car that would be safer.
>
>
> Maybe because 'being safe' includes 4x4 capability for bad weather.
>

Subaru, Audi, VW, Volvo all offer all wheel drive wagons with good
safety ratings. Besides, I have lived in several areas where a
significant amount of annual snowfall was a normal occurrance and never
felt unsafe even in a regular FWD compact so long as I had good tires.


It's probably telling that when working up in the UP I made the
observation that the only people driving trucks and/or SUVs were either
engineers testing same or else people towing snowmobile trailers. Most
of the locals just drove cheap old econobeaters.

nate

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

RJ wrote:

> Nate Nagel <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Remember the days when you could buy a wagon and expect to haul plywood
>>and tow a trailer with it?
>
>
> 1. No 4x4 (a factor wherever it snows)
> 2. Those old beasts delivered around 12 mpg.
>
> If you claim that point 2 is negated by modern technology, everything
> I've seen with seriously higher gas mileage is front wheel drive and is
> therefore worthless as a towing vehicle.

That's not the fault of "passenger cars" per se, it's the fault of CAFE
which has killed the full sized car as we once knew it.

I don't particularly feel that 4x4 is a requirement (see previous post)

nate

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

The Mog's a great off roader, I've ridden in them during my years as a
cadet, the army can drive them all over the landscape where a Landrover or
other SUV cannot go.

yet even they can become civilised. I've seen them on lowered suspensions
with a campervan body on the back. even with the lowering they can outdo
SUVs.

rhys

"Dori Schmetterling" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> You need another product from the DC Group:
>
> http://www.mercedes-benz.com/omb/d/ecars/unimog/u3000u4000.htm
>
> DAS
> --
> ---
> NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
> ---
> "rnf2" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Supermarket Warriors...
> > i use mine to tow tons of metal around to spread on the farm tracks,
loads
> > of timber that would bust an ecnonboxes sustpension, even if it fitted
int
> > he back, and heavy metal SCUBA cylinders and lead weights. an entire
clubs
> > collection, totalling over 600 Kg of tanks and weights made a
neglegible
> > difference in fuel consumption.
> >
> > rhys
> ....................................
>
>
>

The Commadore is a very nice car to drive, My mother, (A farmer) drives a V6
3.8L '89 commadore sedan, It will go up steep hills without shifting down,
and cruises in overdrive at 100Kmh (60Mph) at 2500 rpm.
I've never actually put it through it's paces properly, most cars I drive I
take to a deserted flat stretch of road 4 or so Km long and floor them. my
2L nissan could do 130Kmh before complaining, and could head up the highway
comfortably in cruise control at 120. My Isuzu Bighorn 2.8 Diesel could
manage 145Kmh and runs up the motorway at 140.
I floored my mums commodore and passed 180 and still accellerating when I
had to brake for a corner. so theres power to spare.
The police use 3.8 holdens as chase cars and highway patrol, with an
aftermarket ECU chip giving max speeds in the 250Kmh range.

Think of what a 5.7L V6 could do. amd the monaro body is lighter than the
'89 Commodores. more power, less weight, more tire grip (265/30R18 on the
monaro, 195/70R15 on the Commadore.) adds up to a pretty damn potent
vehicle.

rhys

"Dori Schmetterling" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Well, chaps, that's a timely note (about the Monaro). In last week's
Sunday
> Times, the UK's biggest selling quality Sunday paper, there was an item
> about the Monaro and how it's going to become the Pontiac GTO.
>
> Note that it was described as being of "old design, a relative of the
Omega
> saloon which disappeared from the price lists earlier this year...coming
to
> Britain [as] Vauxhall as a by-product of the decision to launch it in the
> US...
>
> "...GM sought a modern equivalent of its GTO and found this potent coupe
> lurking at its Australian outpost. The Vauxhall Monaro will have the same
> specs as the new GTO...5.7 litre engine V8... and six-speed manual gearbox
> from the Chevrolet Corvette it is loud and fast (0 - 60 mph in 5.5 sec),
yet
> more civilised than its American predecessor, the Pontiac Firebird. At
> present there is nothing quite like the Monaro available in Britain."
>
> Price is GBP 32K for the 360 bhp LSI. The 320 bhp CV8 will cost about GBP
> 28 000.
>
> "Coupes of equivalent size and performance are much more expensive --
> ...Merc CL and forthcoming BMW 6...Vauxhall led the UK car market with the
> Corsa [note: a small car]. Whether it has raised its reputation enough to
> sell a GPB 30K high-performance model remains to be seen."
>
> Just in case you don't all know, Vauxhall is GM's brand. I wonder if it
> will be launched on the Continent (as an Opel).
>
> I guess the Monaro will sit in a separate market niche as Saab is supposed
> to be up-market from Vauxhall/Opel. Saab cars are not that big though.
The
> most powerful engine is a 2.3 l turbo achieving 220 or 250 hp.
>
>
> An additional point is in connection with criticisms elsewhere of designs
> being 'pinched'. The big producers are global and would be foolish not to
> pick designs from all over the place. That said, I am not sure that the
US
> companies 'pinch' enough from their overseas affiliates.
>
>
> DAS
> ---
> NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
> ---
> "rnf2" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > The 5.7L V8 is the latest descendant of the mighty Chevy smallblock
350ci.
> >
> > they can be modified to over 1000 Hp and still be drivable streetlegal.
> >
> > the 3.8 started as a USA GM engine, but a factory was built in Aussie
and
> > R&D changed it, it doesn't interchange well with stock USA GM parts that
> > well now, but theres plenty of support in Aussie for them. the 5L and
5.7L
> > are stock Chevys from Chevs plants in the states. plenty of parts if
they
> > bring Holdens stateside.
> >
> > rhys
> >
> > "Aardwolf" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > >
> > > rnf2 wrote:
> > >
> > > > Built in Australia, sold in Australia and New Zealand and a few
other
> > RHD
> > > > countries.
> > > > Smallest engine in one is 3.8L V6, and goes up to a 5.7L V8. and
even
> > the
> > > > 3.8 can tow 2000Kg, or 4000+ pounds, V8 is up to 3500Kg or so, 7000+
> > pounds.
> > > > www.holden.com.au and www.ford.com.au
> > > > They're big cargo haulers, and very popular with farmers, very
> reliable
> > and
> > > > can take some pretty harsh terrain and climate without flinching.
> > > > very popular with farmers, and can carry 8 people in the station
> wagons.
> > > > with a big boot (trunk) still.
> > > >
> > > > Commador is the entry level car, then the higher specced Berlina and
> the
> > > > luxary Calais.
> > > > then comes the SS, and HSV performance cars.
> > > >
> > > > rhys
> > >
> > > Also sold in mid east countries as Chevrolets with left hand drive--in
> any
> > case
> > > they use totally U.S. drivetrains (engines/transmissions) and can
easily
> > pass
> > > U.S. safety requirements as well. The new Pontiac GTO is a Holden
> Monaro
> > coupe
> > > with different badges. Thanks in large part to union interference
> GM-U.S.
> > keeps
> > > refusing to import any more mainline sedan models, but they'd
doubtless
> > eat all
> > > of the domestic competition as it is now. They'd be 350-horsepower
> family
> > > sedans for as little as $20K U.S.
> > >
> > > The Commodore line and variants come with Corvette engines of up to
350
> > > horsepower (or just over 400 for the HSV-modified versions) and can
> still
> > touch
> > > 30mpg (U.S.) on the highway with a 6-speed overdrive--or they can be
had
> > with
> > > smaller V6 powerplants. The long-wheelbase Statesman (mid east
> "Chevrolet
> > > Caprice") would be a superb replacement for the last U.S. models of
that
> > name,
> > > almost exactly the same size and layout, but incrementally improved
> > (newer, even
> > > more powerful engines, independent rear suspension, etc.).
> > >
> > > I believe the top-line HSV GTS is already sold in the U.K. as a
counter
> to
> > the
> > > BMW E5, and rumors keep popping up that one of the higher line
Commodore
> > models
> > > (Calais most likely) might be introduced there as a replacement for
the
> > last
> > > rear drive Opel Omegas.
> > >
> > > --Aardwolf.
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

But if the Monaro is an older design, won't the road-holding and general
feel be not as good as a more modern design? Straight-line performance
isn't everything.

Am surprised that a 2-litre car (your Nissan) only manages 130 km/h before
"complaining". I would expect 160 AT LEAST, even on a 4 km stretch.


DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"rnf2" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The Commadore is a very nice car to drive, My mother, (A farmer) drives a
V6
> 3.8L '89 commadore sedan, It will go up steep hills without shifting down,
> and cruises in overdrive at 100Kmh (60Mph) at 2500 rpm.
> I've never actually put it through it's paces properly, most cars I drive
I
> take to a deserted flat stretch of road 4 or so Km long and floor them. my
> 2L nissan could do 130Kmh before complaining, and could head up the
highway
> comfortably in cruise control at 120. My Isuzu Bighorn 2.8 Diesel could
> manage 145Kmh and runs up the motorway at 140.
> I floored my mums commodore and passed 180 and still accellerating when I
> had to brake for a corner. so theres power to spare.
> The police use 3.8 holdens as chase cars and highway patrol, with an
> aftermarket ECU chip giving max speeds in the 250Kmh range.
>
> Think of what a 5.7L V6 could do. amd the monaro body is lighter than the
> '89 Commodores. more power, less weight, more tire grip (265/30R18 on the
> monaro, 195/70R15 on the Commadore.) adds up to a pretty damn potent
> vehicle.
>
> rhys
>
................................

In article <[email protected]>, rnf2 wrote:
> The 5.7L V8 is the latest descendant of the mighty Chevy smallblock 350ci.
>
> they can be modified to over 1000 Hp and still be drivable streetlegal.
>
> the 3.8 started as a USA GM engine, but a factory was built in Aussie and
> R&D changed it, it doesn't interchange well with stock USA GM parts that
> well now, but theres plenty of support in Aussie for them. the 5L and 5.7L
> are stock Chevys from Chevs plants in the states. plenty of parts if they
> bring Holdens stateside.

Much like ford's I6. The 250cid 6 started life in the USA but the Aussies
took on it's development. Slowly over the years less and less was common
with the original US engine. (up through the 1970s various aussie parts
are interchangable, including the cross-flow cylinder heads) I don't
know if they ever went to a clean sheet and started over, but what they
have now goes up to a twin turbo overhead cam I6. In either case it's the
evolution of the 170-200-250 family that was never developed in the USA.

P e t e F a g e r l i n <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 17:42:04 -0400, Nate Nagel <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >> Here's your first question:
> >>
> >> "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? "
> >>
> >> Here's my reply:
> >>
> >> "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"
> >>
> >> I hope that helps you.
> >
> >I see you snipped out the actual quote that mattered. Nice misdirection.
>
> No misdirection at all Nate. Just asking you to explain yet another
> silly claim.
>
> I'm not surprised that you continue to avoid the question though.

You asked where I included the qualifier "to other traffic." I
snipped some text out to make it clear where I had stated that. I'd
find the exact bits but I'm posting through Google right now which
makes it rather painful to do so.

>
> >>>There's certain fundamentals of physics that can't be changed. Or
> >>
> >> are
> >>
> >>>you going to tell me that there's some new SUV on the market that has
> >>>a lower CG than a passenger car?
> >>
> >>
> >> The fact that you focus solely upon a vehicle's CG as the sum of it's
> >> handling characteristics indicates that you really need to educate
> >> yourself.
> >>
> >> Fortunately, handling in the real world isn't as simplistic as you
> >> imagine it to be.
> >>
> >
> >Actually, it is fairly simple. A vehicle with a lower CG will handle
> >more predictably to the average driver than one with a high CG, as there
> >will be less dramatic weight-shift responses to various driver inputs.
>
> Again, very simplistic since you ignore a number of other critical
> compnents such as suspension geometry, tire siz and composition,
> supplemental stability control systems, drive system, weight bias,
> etc. etc.

Suspension geometry is often better for the passenger cars, and I
don't consider tire choice to be part of a "vehicle" - that's more a
function of the owner. Supplemental stability control systems are
nice, but again, they're not part of the fundamental handling
characteristics of a vehicle. And often *cough*BMW X5*cough* they
actually hurt rather than help the ability of a skilled driver to
control the vehicle. Drive system and weight bias really aren't valid
for making broad general statements of the suitability of one type of
vehicle over another, as for any class of vehicle you're likely to
find wide ranges of each.

>
> >>>>>Unless you're comparing vehicles at significantly different price
> >>>>>points, they're so rare that they effectively don't exist.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>AHHHHH....so this is the part where Nate backpedals from his
> >>
> >> hilarious
> >>
> >>>>gross generalizations and brings price into the mix.
> >>>
> >>>"hilarious" how?
> >>
> >>
> >> Hilarious in that you're completely lost and over your head in this
> >> discussion so your only avenue of escape is to start whining about
> >> inequitable comparisons based upoin cost.
> >
> >It's a perfectly valid and equitable comparison. Every time I hear
> >someone bitch that they spend $(something large) for a SUV because they
> >wanted to be safe, I wonder why they didn't spend the same money for a
> >car that would be safer.
>
> Who has been bitching about price in this discussion? Certainly not
> me.
>
> Talk about misdirection.

Nobody's bitching about price. Just trying to compare apples to
apples.

>
> >It's fairly well established that cost is actually a pretty good metric
> >of vehicle safety - which makes sense.
>
> So using your "logic" there are SUVs that are safer than many cars.
>
> Good job! You bought yourself a clue!

But not for the same price point. Of course a $50K plus SUV might be
more safe than a $15K car. I never tried to claim otherwise.

>
> >> Do you honestly think it's fair to compare a $70K
> >>
> >>>vehicle with a $15K one?
> >>
> >>
> >> Do you honestly think "it's fair" to make broad generalizations about
> >> 'SUVs" (which are vehicles with a wide price range) in comparison to
> >> passenger cars and then whine when your assumptions don't match the
> >> real world?
> >>
> >
> >Of course not. But you do it anyway.
>
> Ah, the ole "I know you are but what am I?" retort. Sad.
>
> Where have I made a broad generalization in this thread Nate? Please
> quote. Thanks.
>
> (hint: I haven't)

No comment needed...

>
> >>>>That doesn't bode well for your comments wherein you lump all SUVs
> >>>>into the same group does it Nate?
> >>>>
> >>>>"rare" LOL. You're still really confused Nate.
> >>>
> >>>I do not think that I am the one that is confused.
> >>
> >>
> >> Your comments about "rare" SUVs indicate that you're very confused,
> >> don't have a good grasp of the english language, or both.
> >>
> >
> >It is rare for an SUV to be statistically safer in anything but multiple
> >vehicle crashes than a similarly priced car. If you're going to argue
> >with that statement, better bring on some facts.
>
> Ah, there you go again back pedaling from your prior claim and
> including price as a qualifier.
>
> Changing the discussion doesn't make your prior claims any less
> ridiculous Nate and is very poor form.
>
> For shame!

See above.

>
> >>>>Your whines about "getting back to talking about driving" certainly
> >>>>indicate some level of angst regarding SUV discussions which you
> >>>>apparently just can't resist!
> >>>
> >>>I'm sick of the same misinformation being repeated at 2-3 month
> >>>intervals, is all.
> >>
> >>
> >> What misinformation would that be Nate?
> >>
> >> I've posted the truth. The fact that you're apparently too dense to
> >> understand it doesn't make it any less valid.
> >
> >What truth is that? That you bought an SUV to be "safe?" That's not
> >"truth," that's you not being well informed.
>
> Please find one of the big kids at school and have them help you with
> your reading comprehension. You'll look like less of an idiot if you
> get some help.
>
> Since you apparently aren't familiar with all of the SUV offerings out
> there, especially the type that I bought because I was concerned about
> my safety and my family's safety, you have no way of determining what
> the truth is.
>

I'm actually familiar with most, and since you haven't named a
specific brand or model until now, I have no choice but to make some
assumptions.

<snip>

> >>>
> >>>You are correct, you didn't use the word "safest" in your message,
> >>
> >> but
> >>
> >>>if you were truly had the safety of your family as the highest
> >>>priority, surely you would have bought the safest vehicle that you
> >>>could afford?
> >>
> >>
> >> Safety is always a trade-off vs. practicality. My SUV is very safe and
> >> also offers utility that can't be found in other cars that might, or
> >> might not, be as safe or safer.
> >>
> >
> >Such as...? The only valid answer to that question that I can think of
> >would be the ability to tow a heavy trailer, but you haven't mentioned
> >that yet, so I'm guessing that that is not the reason. "I just liked
> >it" would be a far more reasonable justification. In my mind, that's
> >actually a perfectly valid reason, I just can't stand the intellectual
> >dishonesty you keep displaying.
>
> "Intelectual dishonesty"? ROTFLMAO!
>
> Because you assume that my SUV isn't safer than many cars and
> outhandles many cars I'm "intellectually dishonest"? Man, you're a
> piece of work.
>
> I bought my SUV for its ability to tow, the ability to get to remote
> places off-road, the ability to not have to chain up when the snow
> flies, the ability to haul a ton of crap when we go away, because it's
> a blast to drive, etc. etc.
>
> The same reasons that many folks make the decision to buy an SUV.
>

"a blast to drive?" I find that hard to believe. I also don't see
the need for a SUV "when the snow flies" as usually a regular
passenger car is more capable and easier to control IME. Now towing I
can understand, but this is the first time you've mentioned that.

> >> No assuming that you do take your SUV off road as you
> >>
> >>>imply, surely you realize the compromises that must be made to allow
> >>
> >> a
> >>
> >>>vehicle to be capable off road that impact its on road performance?
> >>
> >>
> >> Yes...and your point is?
> >>
> >
> >That was my point. You're driving a compromised vehicle, yet claiming
> >you bought it for safety.
>
> Uh, where did I claim that I made my decision solely based upon
> safety? Quote please.
>
> You've already gotten yourself into trouble a few times by misquoting
> and/or reading too much into what people have written. Poor form Nate.
>

You made a statement that you bought the vehicle because you cared
about the safety of your family. Nowhere did you mention towing etc.
I already quoted it, but snipped the quote out of this reply because
it's getting unwieldy enough as it is.

> >>>Good wheel articulation and good high-speed handling are pretty much
> >>>mutually exclusive, you know. The reason the *real* off roaders
> >>
> >> don't
> >>
> >>>argue about safety is because they know this.
> >>
> >>
> >> Ah, the ole "real off-roaders" schtick. If it's not rock crawling it's
> >> not off roading.
> >>
> >
> >Or Baja racing, or simple hard trail running. Wheel articulation is
> >important for all of these types of off roading.
>
> Yes. So why do you assume that a vehicle with good wheel articulation,
> say something that is very competitve in something like Paris-Dakar,
> has poor high speed handling?

Because good articulation means by necessity less roll control, which
means more weight transfer to the outside wheels, which means less
ultimate grip as well as poorer response to quick left-right-left
combinations (or, say, a swerving maneuver.) Great up to a point on
rough roads or dirt, but on pavement at high speed can be a liability.

>
> >> LOL.
> >>
> >> My SUV has plenty of wheel articulation and off-road capabilty for my
> >> needs and it also has very good high speed (or high G) handling as
> >> well.
> >>
> >
> >LOL! I'd love to see what you consider "High G."
>
> See my reply at the end of the previous message Nate. Just bring your
> helmet. I'll take care of the rest.
>
> >Keep in mind that most drivers never use more than 30% of their
> >vehicle's capabilities on the road, so even a poor handling vehicle may
> >be deemed acceptable by an unskilled driver.
>
> I understand your point.
>
> Are you implying that I'm an unskilled driver and/or that I don't use
> more than 30% of my vehicles' capabilites on the road because I know
> that my SUV out handles many cars and you can't come to terms with
> that fact?

I'm implying that many people who buy SUV's for "safety" reasons are
unskilled drivers and aren't really qualified to make statements about
the handling of their vehicle. I don't know whether you qualify or
not.
<snip>

> >> This is the best part I think.
> >>
> >> Because I drive an SUV that handles better than many cars, and because
> >> you get yourself all wrapped up in your assumptions and flail about
> >> spectacularly, you assume that someone who disagrees with your myopic
> >> view of SUVs can't be a "driving enthusiast."
> >>
> >> Maybe I'll see you and your Stude at the track some day (one with
> >> corners not one of those boring 1/4 mile things) and we can chat
> >> about what makes one a "driving enthusiast."
> >>
> >> Be sure to bring your helemt and I'll take you for a ride.
> >>
> >> I can bring the SUV or I can bring something a bit faster. Your
> >> choice.
> >>
> >
> >The fact that you're comparing the handling of your vehicle to a 40 year
> >old compact with a very heavy engine and live rear axle just illustrates
> >my point.
>
> My bad. I didn't mean to imply that I was comparing my SUV to your old
> car.
>
> I meant it like this:
>
> You claim that you're a "driving enthusiast" and that I can't be a
> "driving enthusiast" because of the facts surrounding the handling
> capabilities/safety of my SUV.
>
> If you're a "driving enthusiast" I would expect that you would enjoy a
> day at the track. Not for a head-to-head comparison, but simply to
> enjoy driving.
>
> > But if you're challenging me to a race, why don't you pick on my
> >Scirocco or GTI...
>
> See above. If you want to do some racing with someone who you
> apparently assume isn't a "driving enthusiast" I'm always game for a
> little friendly competition.
>
> I'll even let you pick whether I drive the SUV or what I usually play
> around in on the track.
>
> It's your choice.
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/psf0/tow.jpg
>
> (just give me some advanced warning so I can get the bike racks off of
> the SUV if that's your choice)
>
> pete fagerlin

Well, I have to admit that the M-class is actually one SUV that I
haven't driven. I'm assuming from the wheels in the pic that that is
the ML500 version... That pretty much falls into what I would
consider the "big wagon" category of SUV - IOW not really suitable for
heavy hauling or towing (note the 5000lb. max tow capability and
independent rear suspension) and closer to a traditional car than an
actual truck. Thanks to CAFE though, we can't actually buy a car with
those specs. Enough to make me want to move to Australia, really...

With that in mind, yes, you're probably right, it probably does handle
better and is safer than many vehicles on the road. However, to go
back to a previous point, it lists at a base price of almost $50K,
where there's lots of cars that handle better and are just as capable
for light off-roading. However, since you apparently are doing some
medium-duty towing, I can understand your choice as your only other
options would have been more truck-based vehicles.

In a weird, roundabout way, you've made my point by staunchly
defending your "SUV" and then choosing one of the most carlike of the
lot.

In any case, WTF is that P-car doing on the trailer? Why not just
drive *that?* I know which of the two vehicles I'd feel safer
driving, and probably have more fun in as well... The pic of those
two vehicles makes me really question your statement that it's a
"blast to drive" though as it would appear from the pic that you have,
indeed driven a truly fun car.

And as for the friendly competition... it'd better be a *really* tight
track, cause lapping by myself is no fun. Kinda hard to compete with
a vehicle with a power-to-weight ratio that flat out kicks my ass no
matter how much suspension I have...

nate

In article <[email protected]>,
"Joe" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Interesting. The best president ever was not a liberal (Reagan)...

Your opinion is not fact.


> Much
>like Unions, Liberals were useful at one time. Now their time has passed
>and they won't die off quietly...

You can join Ann Coulter and advocate killing them, I guess.

>
>"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> "Joe" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >Lloyd,
>> >Are you a Lliberal?
>>
>> Yep, like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and all the other founding
>fathers.
>> Like John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, FDR, and all the other great
>presidents.
>> Like Jesus and Ghandi, for that matter.
>>
>> >LLOL
>> >
>> >"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?
>> >
>> >
>
>

In article <1g37ft1.1df2fd3htdg0eN%[email protected]>,
[email protected] (RJ) wrote:
>Nate Nagel <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Every time I hear
>> someone bitch that they spend $(something large) for a SUV because they
>> wanted to be safe, I wonder why they didn't spend the same money for a
>> car that would be safer.
>
>Maybe because 'being safe' includes 4x4 capability for bad weather.
>
Which lots of cars and minivans offer.

In article <Utjlb.606952$cF.273281@rwcrnsc53>,
[email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> "Joe" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>Lloyd,
>>>Are you a Lliberal?
>>
>> Yep, like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and all the other founding
fathers.
>
>I don't think so. You'd call pratically everything on this page
>"right-wing-something-or-the-other" I am sure:
>
>http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/quotes/wisdom.html
>I think the first one speaks against a great number of things from the
>democrat party in the last oh 70 years:
>
>"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will
>herald the end of the republic." -- Benjamin Franklin
>
>And if not that, I am sure these founding father quotes would really
>get your panties in a bunch:
>
>http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/quotes/arms.html
>
>Having read your writings over the years, as well as learned a fair
>amount about the "founding fathers" I see no agreement.
>
>Oh, and as far as JFK is concerned, funny how if you listen to JFK's
>speeches (recorded) keeping current views in mind, his talking about using
>tax cuts to stimulate the economy, etc etc you'd think he was a
>republican.....

Suyre, because tax rates were something like 90% at the upper end. Now that
they're 37%, you're going to lose revenue by cutting them, as Bush has done.

>
>
>

In article <[email protected]>,
"Joe" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"global warming is as established fact"

Yes.

>Fact? Every "fact" you post will be contradicted by an equally credible
>fact from the other (correct) side...

No. Look at the scientific literature, look at IPCC, look at NASA, look at
NOAA, look at EPA, look at National Academy of Sciences.

As I said, it's as settled as atoms, gravity, relativity, evolution, etc.

>
>"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >On Tue, 21 Oct 03 10:41:33 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>Your SUV uses more natural resources,
>> >
>> >Than what? Your MB?
>>
>> Than pretty much any CAR.
>>
>> >>increases our dependence on foreign oil,
>> >
>> >We don't depend on foreign oil; you should know that.
>>
>> Remember what happened the 2 times it was cut off?
>>
>> >We have made a choice, for economic reasons, to use oil that is
>> >cheaper to buy than using our own.
>>
>> And we couldn't replace it tomorrow, could we?
>>
>> >Our own oil isn't intrinsically cheaper, but getting iot out of the
>> >ground has been made much more expensive by government fiat.
>> >>forces us to spend more on defending those countries,
>> >
>> >Hardly; they can use their own oil profits to defend themselves.
>>
>> Why did we go to war in Gulf War I? Why do we maintain troops and ships
>in
>> the Persian Gulf?
>>
>> >Our problem with them is that they want to govern themselves, and make
>> >their own choices as to what friends they make. That we don't like
>> >their choices shouldn't be used as an excuse for military action.
>> >>forces us to risk lives defending those countries,
>> >
>> >Where?
>> >>hurts our balance of payments,
>> >
>> >Brought on by government regulations, which in turn are brought on by
>> >those who would rather see other countries use their oil rather than
>> >our own, claiming that "it's for our children."
>> >Tree huggers don't seem to have a problem with "raping" other
>> >countries if it means our children are safe.
>> >>and increases global warming.
>> >
>> >That's truly laughable.
>> >What did we do to bring the world out of the last big ice age? BBQ too
>> >many mammoths?
>> >Why do those who claim "global warming" is both unnatural and our
>> >fault completely ignore the past?
>>
>> I suggest you learn some science; global warming is as established fact as
>> evolution, relativity, quantum behavior, etc.
>>
>> >>It's laughable that people doing so much to hurt our country drive
>> >>around with American flags on their SUVs.
>> >
>> >It's also laughable that so many who don't seem to understand their
>> >own ideals, and the consequences of them, continue to cry that those
>> >who don't believe as they do are trying to hurt the USA.
>> >For you rinformation, SUVs are not the problem so many seem to think
>> >they are. I'll put the emissions from my SUV against your MB anytime.
>> >
>
>

In article <[email protected]>,
"Joe" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Brent,
>Do not confront a liberal with facts... it confuses them.

Where are the WMD? Facts, please.

>Joe
>
>"Brent P" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:Utjlb.606952$cF.273281@rwcrnsc53...
>> In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> > In article <[email protected]>,
>> > "Joe" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>Lloyd,
>> >>Are you a Lliberal?
>> >
>> > Yep, like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and all the other founding
>fathers.
>>
>> I don't think so. You'd call pratically everything on this page
>> "right-wing-something-or-the-other" I am sure:
>>
>> http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/quotes/wisdom.html
>> I think the first one speaks against a great number of things from the
>> democrat party in the last oh 70 years:
>>
>> "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will
>> herald the end of the republic." -- Benjamin Franklin
>>
>> And if not that, I am sure these founding father quotes would really
>> get your panties in a bunch:
>>
>> http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/quotes/arms.html
>>
>> Having read your writings over the years, as well as learned a fair
>> amount about the "founding fathers" I see no agreement.
>>
>> Oh, and as far as JFK is concerned, funny how if you listen to JFK's
>> speeches (recorded) keeping current views in mind, his talking about using
>> tax cuts to stimulate the economy, etc etc you'd think he was a
>> republican.....
>>
>>
>>
>
>

In article <[email protected]>, Aardwolf <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> A 68 Charger puts out over 100X the emissions of a new car, so it's foolish
to
>> claim it's "indistinguishable" from one.
>
>_Virtually_ indistinguishable--when both are _also_ compared to a gross
polluter,
>which puts out, by definition, far, far more than either.
>
>--Aardwolf.
>
>
Like cutting off a finger is "virtually indistinguishable" from not, compared
to getting your head cut off, I guess.

In article <[email protected]>,
Nate Nagel <[email protected]> wrote:
>RJ wrote:
>
>> Nate Nagel <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Every time I hear
>>>someone bitch that they spend $(something large) for a SUV because they
>>>wanted to be safe, I wonder why they didn't spend the same money for a
>>>car that would be safer.
>>
>>
>> Maybe because 'being safe' includes 4x4 capability for bad weather.
>>
>
>Subaru, Audi, VW, Volvo all offer all wheel drive wagons with good
>safety ratings.

Ditto Mercedes and BMW. Also awd minivans -- Dodge, Chysler, and Toyota.


>Besides, I have lived in several areas where a
>significant amount of annual snowfall was a normal occurrance and never
>felt unsafe even in a regular FWD compact so long as I had good tires.
>
>
>It's probably telling that when working up in the UP I made the
>observation that the only people driving trucks and/or SUVs were either
>engineers testing same or else people towing snowmobile trailers. Most
>of the locals just drove cheap old econobeaters.
>
>nate
>

In article <[email protected]>,
"Ted Mittelstaedt" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Aardwolf" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>> I disagree--to an extent. As I've said before, people will buy what
>they're
>> told they want. If there were a lot of Magnum-type wagons and sedans that
>> actually had some real style and to them--AND available AWD, and more to
>the
>> point if there was actually advertising to explain to people how kick-ass
>they
>> thought they were, I'll bet there would be a large shift away from
>suddently
>> stodgy, ill handling trucks. Sure a number of people would still buy
>trucks
>> to haul stuff around, and some might still want some for image--they
>always
>> have, even pre-Dukes of Hazzard, but Navigators and Envoys and Escalades?
>> They'd be gone.
>>
>
>You cannot substitute "styling" for interior leg and head room. You have to
>go
>back to the early 70's like a 73 T-Bird or a Old 98 before you can find a
>sedan that could actually fit 4 adults comfortably.

Dodge Intrepid, Chrysler Concorde -- plenty of room for 5 adults. Ditto Ford
Crown Vic, Mercury Grand Marquis, Lincoln Town Car, Cadillacl deVille, Buick
Park Avenue/LeSabre, Pontiac Bonneville, Toyota Avalon, Mercedes S-class, BMW
7-series, Jaguar XJ-series, Audi 8-series, Volvo 80-series, ...


>Sure, if automakers
>started
>producing such vehicles again, you might knock off a few SUVs that were
>bought to haul adults around, but the people that bought SUV's for real
>hauling aren't going to go to a wagon, and the people that bought them to
>haul
>families aren't going to go to a wagon either (although they would have
>been
>a lot smarter to have bought either a minivan or a full size van, IMHO)
>and the posers that bought them to pretend they are offroaders in the
>city aren't going to go to a sedan either.
>
>Where station wagons shine is if you have ONE driver that regularly
>has a need of hauling small to mid size delivery. For example the
>admin that needs to drive a computer across town, the wife that
>likes going to the rummage sales on the weekend, the janitor
>who has to haul cleaning supplies to a building, the construction
>foreman who goes to a couple job sites, and a smattering
>of service guys who don't need to carry ladders or large tools.
>
>Ted
>
>