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.


Dori Schmetterling wrote:

>
> 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

Nothing wrong with "old" as long as it's still competitive.


> 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.

GM should pinch just about everything. They actually make some of the best,
most cost-effective products available in their market segments--elsewhere.

--Aardwolf.

 


Dori Schmetterling wrote:

> 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.

Models equipped with the performance running gear have been compared pretty
favorably to BMWs several times, and are about half the price in their domestic
market. The chassis is a pretty good one; it was further reinforced and revised
over the original Opel design back when Holden acquired it, and has been further
upgraded over the years.

--Aardwolf.

 


Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> "Aardwolf" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > And more drilling ain't gonna be enough to help once India and China (at a
> > billion plus inhabitants a piece) become modern, G7-style industrial
> nations.
> > Which they're just about to do.
> >
>
> Shhh - don't give the SUV owners nightmares. :)

Not just the SUV owners--pretty much the entire world's fossil-fuel powered
infrastructure. :-/

>
> Using oil as a motor vehicle fuel is totally unsupportable in the long run.
> What is
> ultimately going to happen is the price of gas will be driven so high that
> it will
> eclipse the cost of going electric, and that will be the end of the internal
> combusion
> engine in passenger cars. Alcohol is not an answer, there's not enough
> biomass
> production in the country to produce the fuel needed.

Besides it produces some pretty nasty byproducts itself, when burned.

> The choices are going
> to
> be electric generation plants powered by coal, or nuclear, both of which the
> greens hate, powering the majority of passenger cars, probably with a few
> hardy souls running off natural gas.

>
> But of course you can't tell the SUV owners this, they think that we are all
> going
> to be burning hydrogen in our cars. Just wait until they find out that no
> city of
> any appreciable population density is going to permit a gas station that
> contains
> 10,000 gallons of compressed hydrogen stored in tanks anywhere in the city
> limits,
> where an exploson will remove about 10 blocks from the tax rolls.

Well I'm a little more optimistic regarding the future of hydrogen, what with
the possibility of distributed generation, and the fact that its not persistent
in the environment, like natural gas is (hydrogen rises). The Hindenberg didn't
explode after all--just burned, even after the gas load went. Its problem was
that it was almost totally combustible--the main contibuting factor to the fire
was that it used a fabric dope that was made of powdered aluminum (to reflect
heat) and iron on a nitrocellulose base--i.e. the outer covering was basically
painted with a mixture of rocket fuel and guncotton! But I digress; Hindenberg
aside I've never yet heard of any large-scale hydrogen explosion. And it would
still need _some_ sort of electricity generating infrastructure for production,
anyway. If centralized it probably could not be made totally renewable at least
in the beginning.

--Aardwolf.

 

"Brent P" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:OfBlb.346$ao4.2182@attbi_s51...
> In article <[email protected]>, Joe wrote:
> > "Where are the WMD? Facts, please"
> > Ask Bill Clinton. He said they were there too. Or ask the UN who as a
body
> > said that he had them. Or better yet, ask Saddam who ADMITTED to having
> > them (OK, not a good source). The whole WMD "argument" is weak at
best...
> > He had them, you KNOW it. There is proof of it.
> >
> > Read what Bill Clinton had to say about the matter during his reign of
> > terror:
>
> <snip>
>
> Better yet, read what current office holding democrats urged Clinton to
do.
> I did some googling for the kind of things I remember:
>
> http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/924722/posts
>
> http://www.nci.org/c/c81199.htm
>
> http://www.habitablezone.com/currentevents/messages/296525.html
>
> Nothing is particularly shocking until reading who signed these letters
> and said these things. And really that's where my objections come in,
> because Bush took the kind of action that these people wanted Clinton to
> do. But they object to bush doing it. This shows that these people have
> no convictions, no views they are willing to stand up for (at least in
> this regard), they just do whatever they think is more politically
> viable at the time.
>
> In 1998 it was more viable to support that sort of action.
> in 2002-3 it was more viable to object to that sort of action.
>
> It really demonstrates a sad state of affairs with regard to the
> elected officals in this country and part of why we need to start
> throwing almost all of them (regardless of party IMO) out of office
> while we may still be able to.
>

Thanks, Brent. That was a breath of fresh air in a really stinky thread.

Jack


 


Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> 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.

1996 Chevrolet Caprice/Impala SS/Buick Roadmaster/Cadillac Fleetwood. The
Impala especially was never advertised but GM had orders for more than they
could build, they still sell for list price if in good shape.


> 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)

Dodge for one seems to be betting otherwise. I guess time will tell.


> and the posers that bought them to pretend they are offroaders in the
> city aren't going to go to a sedan either.

Only because it's percieved as cool. Deeply tied in with the popular culture of
the moment, which, for consumer items at least, is largely controlled by
advertising--whether pitched directly, or through the entertainment media.

Doubtless the automakers are happy enough about it, they can charge based on
demand while building off tooling that was paid for twenty years ago.

--Aardwolf.


 
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 13:52:05 -0400, "Joe" <[email protected]
([email protected])> wrote:

> If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his
>footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act
>with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations
>Security Council, and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction
>program.

Mental midget. Typical right-winger.

 
[email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
> "Dave C." <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> No, because the makers had to make smaller, lighter, yet still
>>> high-performance vehicles. Without CAFE, we'd still be driving what we
>>were
>>> in the early 70s. 5000-lb lumbering land yachts.
>>
>>And I really miss those 5000-lb lumbering land yachts. Lots of other people
>>do, too.
>
>Yeah, the same ones who miss carburetors, manual chokes, drum brakes. The
>ones who think NASCAR is high-tech.

So wanting room makes you a Luddite? You really only appear stupider every
time I read one of your posts.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
 
[email protected] (Brent P) wrote:

>That's lloyd's politics, and that clouds everything he posts.

Personally, I think it is his stupidity. My politics overlap with his on
some issues, and he is one of the people you really don't want on your
side.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
 
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,
>instead wanting to decide for everyone what they should have.
>Why should you get to do that?

CAFE for passenger vehicles should be the same for all passenger vehicle.
That seems to be a reasonable desire. I'd question why you want varying
CAFE for passenger vehicles depending on whether the rear seats fold flat.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
 
[email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

>Today's cars put out less than 1% of the emissions that 68 did.

What are the average emissions for 1968 vehicles in good condition compared
to a 1 yr old 2003 car?

My guess is that you won't look. If you were to look you wouldn't find it.
If you found it, you would find that the 1968 vehicles do not put out 100
times the emissions.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
 

"Bill Funk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 13:46:12 -0400, "Joe" <[email protected]
> ([email protected])> wrote:
>
> >"I even put a lower gear set in the rear end two years ago and it still
> >passes w/ flying colors."
> >Not to digress from this ****ty thread but why would the lower gear set
in
> >the rear end affect the emissions inspection?
>
> A lower gear ratio (a higher numerical ratio) will make the drive
> wheels turn less per engine revolution.
> Thus, fewer miles traveled per gallon used.
> Thus, more pullution in grams per mile travelled.
>
> This ignores that the engine may be running at an RPM that produces
> less pollution per mile.

Didn't think of that, I've heard engines run cleaner at certain RPM ranges,
but it never really got through the brainpan.



 
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.

But the discussion was about larger vehicles -- like older station
wagons and (true) full size sedans. None of these are practical for
more than nominally 5 people and in reality 4 people.

> 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.

I grew up in the snowbelt off Lake Erie and have probably logged as much
time driving a 2wd car in in snow as anybody. Dropping into 4wd makes a
trip that was a pain into one that's easy. And, at the margin, there
are plenty of times when it can be the difference between going and not
going somewhere.

> 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.

Given the chronically weak economy of the area, this may not be due to
their preferences.
 
Nate Nagel <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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 agree.

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

Your personal preferences and what will sell cars may be different. I
think having lots of 4x4 choices that aren't SUVs could shift the sales
toward more cars. In the case of people who tow things, the 4x4
guarantees rear wheel drive, which is a towing necessity.
 
>
> > I don't particularly feel that 4x4 is a requirement (see previous post)
>
> Your personal preferences and what will sell cars may be different. I
> think having lots of 4x4 choices that aren't SUVs could shift the sales
> toward more cars. In the case of people who tow things, the 4x4
> guarantees rear wheel drive, which is a towing necessity.

You're failing to mention that many drivers in the U.S. have a necessity for
4X4 or AWD that has nothing to do with towing or even off-road driving. I
personally think it's a good idea for each family to have at least one
vehicle with all four wheels driven if they live in an area with REAL
winters. It doesn't have to be a truck or SUV, except that in the U.S.,
that would limit your choices to high-end luxury cars or smallish Subarus.
In other words, for families, you're pretty much stuck with an SUV. Damn
CAFE to hell. -Dave


 
RJ wrote:
> Nate Nagel <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> The only true full size car left is the Crown Vic. Still rear wheel
dirve with steel frame. Big fan, and heavy enough to keep you alive.

 


Lloyd Parker wrote:

> Yeah, we got Pintos, Vegas, and Gremlins.

I can't speak to Vegas and Gremlins, but I did own a shiny new 1972 Pinto. The
only import car in the same price range that was better in my opinion was the
Datsun 510 (and it was more expensive). The low cost Toyotas available in the
Eastern US in 1972 were low grade junk and too small inside besides. The VWs
sold at that time were laugable. The 510 was a great little car. I probably
would have bought one if there had been a dealer in my home town. The biggest
problem the US companies had was their desire to not build low price cars that
would take sales away from their other models.

Ed

 
Kevin wrote:
> RJ wrote:
>> Nate Nagel <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> The only true full size car left is the Crown Vic. Still rear wheel
> dirve with steel frame. Big fan, and heavy enough to keep you alive.

istr that the story is when they are hit from the rear the fuel tank is
prone to rupture and ignite the spillage. Kind of like a big Pinto.

--
Rickety


 
In article <[email protected]>,
Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Tue, 21 Oct 03 16:44:28 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>Nice backpeddle.
>>
>>>>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?
>
>Yup. Do you?
>No emergencies.
>Lots of people who still managed to still get on with life.
>Some people moderately inconvenienced.

I remember what happened to the economy too. When that much money gets sucked
out of the economy and sent overseas, when industries shut down for lack of
fuel, ...


>Many people doing really stupid things like topping off everytime
>their gas gauges moved off "Full".
>>
>>>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?
>
>Actually, we could.

With ANWR?


>We wouldn't *need* to, though, because we have
>several days of gas in the pipeline, including the gas in our tanks
>today.
>Or are you one of those who tops up whtn the gas gauge moves off
>"Full"?
>>
>>>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?
>
>The fact that Kuwait *didn't* do so os not proof that it (or indeed, a
>coalition of oil producing countries) *can't* do so.
>They can.
>Like I said.
>That they asked for our help doesn't negate any of that.
>
>Am I to conclude from what you say that you would prefer to let rogue
>countries (like Saddam's Iraq) have their way?

We let China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc., have their way now. It
seems to depend on Bush's mood each day.

>>
>>>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.
>
>Global warming is indeed an established fact.
>
>What's not established is *why* it's happening.

Yes it is. Read the scientific literature. Read the National Academy of
Sciences report. Read the IPCC report.

>There are those who ignore facts, refuse to admit that this has
>happened many times before without the help of man, and want to help
>their agenda by claiming that *this time*, we are at fault.
>They use computer models to impress the masses, while trying to hide
>the fact that such models are extremely easy to program (that's all
>these models are: programs) to show anything the programmer wants.
>Such "facts" are extremely suspect.

No, computer models are only used to try to predict what GW will be like in
the future. We know from data (CO2 is up, temp. is up) and basic scientific
principles (CO2 is produced by human activities, CO2 traps heat) what's
causing GW.

>
>>
>>>>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] ([email protected])> wrote:
>"You can join Ann Coulter and advocate killing them, I guess"
>Well, treason is punishable by death (I think)...

I suggest you read the constitution for is "treason" is.

>
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> 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 <uwxlb.846895$Ho3.255387@sccrnsc03>,
[email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> In article <Utjlb.606952$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.
>
>Can't address more than one thing per post now?
>Anyway, the only reason the government needs such massive amounts of
>revenue is because peoplee have voted themselves money from the treasury.
>
>
Ain't democracy wonderful!
 
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