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.
Lloyd, how many petroleum based products are in your computer?

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <7OAlb.1739$HS4.3963@attbi_s01>,
> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
> >In article <[email protected]>, Bill Funk wrote:
> >> On Tue, 21 Oct 03 16:44:28 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
> wrote:
> >
> >>>>>Your SUV uses more natural resources,
> >>>>Than what? Your MB?
> >>>Than pretty much any CAR.
> >> Nice backpeddle.
> >
> >Dr. Parker ignored my asking him about his MB, but from this response
> >we can conclude that his fuel economy threshold is somewhere below that
> >of his MB. Therefore any SUV that meets or exceeds the fuel economy
> >of lloyd's MB should be acceptable, right lloyd?
> >
> >
> Sure, I'll agree to that. Beat 20/26 and I'll agree your SUV isn't a
> gas-guzzling, terrorist-supporting hog. (It still blocks other drivers'
view
> and tends to roll over, however...)


 
"CO2 is produced by human activities"
and nothing else. So there was NO CO2 before humans evolved??


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


 
the '80s Jaguar XJ6 / XJ12s used to do that - they had fuel tanks in each
rear quarter which would burst and spray fuel into the interior.. Changed
with the XJ40s

--
Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

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


 
the Kadett was a horrible piece of ****, with a rusty body, awful gearbox
and weak 4 cyl thrashy engine. The brakes were great and the handling was
pretty good for a small car, but the build quality sucked..

I had one ...

Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
: In article <[email protected]>,
: "C. E. White" <[email protected]> wrote:
: >
: >
: >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.
:
: I had a 1972 Corolla that was an excellent entry-level car. Opel was also
: selling Kadetts and 1900s that were good cars.
:
:
: >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
: >


 

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >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:...
> >
> >And of course Lloyd will find some way not to accept that information as
> >facts (proving what you said in your preceding post).
> >
> >You'd think that Lloyd, being some kind of teacher of science, would
> >understand the law of the conservation of mass. It essentially says that
> >in a closed system, the amount (mass) of matter stays constant. If you
> >consider the earth a closed system (we can assume that SH didn't rocket
> >them off into space), then if SH had them a few years ago, then they
> >still exist (that is, if you subtract out the ones that were used on his
> >own people) - somewhere on earth. They must either still be in Iraq
> >(either above or below ground), or in some other country(ies). If they
> >were destroyed (i.e., converted to a harmless form), then that should be
> >documentable or provable in some physical way. Conservation of mass.
> >
> >Summary: In order not to violate the law of the conservation of mass, if
> >they existed they would have to have been:
> >(1) Dissipated (by use)
> >(2) Moved and found (so far no)
> >(3) Moved and not found found (i.e., well hidden - buried, built into
> >structures - concrete maybe, or moved to another country)
> >(4) Shot into space
>
> (5) Destroyed by the UN inspectors between 1991-2003, as was their job.
>

That's funny, if the UN inspectors destroyed them, you would think they
would have remembered that. Was this before or after they were kicked out of
Iraq by Saddam?

> >
> >All that the world demanded was that he show them or account for their
> >destruction, and he in effect refused. Then the rest of the world
> >decided that they really didn't mean it.
>
> And now the world demands Bush prove they exist, since he claimed they
did.
>

Since Saddam has used them several times in the past, only a totally
braindead Liberal could claim they didn't exist. Question is Where are they
now, not do they exist. If they were destroyed, why couldn't, or wouldn't,
Saddam provide proof of it? Keep posting Lloyd, everytime you do it serves
to educate all the new readers about just how ignorant you truly are.

! =-----


 

"Joe" <[email protected] ([email protected])> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Lies, all a pack of lies."
> Lloyd, these are all BILL CLINTON statements... Are you saying that BILL
> CLINTON lied? I guess it depends on your definition of LIE...
>
>

Why not? Lloyd lies, and he's Liberal, plus Clinton is his hero. If lying
under oath was good enough for slick Willy, it's good enough for Lloyd.

> "Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "Joe" <[email protected] ([email protected])> wrote:
> > >"Where are the WMD? Facts, please"
> > >Ask Bill Clinton. He said they were there too.
> <snip>
> > > 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.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > So where are those huge quantities? Where is the uranium? Where are
> those
> > drones that could deliver it all here?
> >
> > Lies, all a pack of lies.
>
>


 

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Wed, 22 Oct 03 10:51:14 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
> >wrote:
> >
> >>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.
> >
> >Yes, but the *why* is pure conjecture.
>
> No, the why is entirely settled.

Yep, and it isn't caused by man.

>
> >
> >I suppose that you teach that when something happens, that has
> >happened before, the latest instance must be for a different reason?
> >Is that how you teach?
> >
> I teach facts and science, not right-wing political propaganda.

You wouldn't know a fact if it kicked you in the teeth.


 


Lloyd Parker wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> "C. E. White" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >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.
>
> I had a 1972 Corolla that was an excellent entry-level car. Opel was also
> selling Kadetts and 1900s that were good cars.

Well it is all opinion, but I though the 70's Corollas were cramped, noisy, slow,
and ugly. Plus even in North Carolina they rusted out in just a few years. The
Opels were more expensive than a Pinto and, at least where I lived, poorly
supported by Buick (same story with the Ford Cortinas). If I'd had more money, I
probably would have bought a Capri, but the Pinto was much cheaper. For as long as
I owned my Pinto I autocrossed it. It was not the best car in its class (and I was
far from the best driver), but I don't recall either the Opels or the Toyotas
being much of a treat. One of my HS chums had a 1900. My sister was still driving
my Pinto when his 1900 was sent to the junk yard becasue it was too expensive to
fix.

The problem with captive imports is the lack of support the parent company seems
to devote to them. GM, Ford, and even Chrysler (remember the Cricket?) have all at
times imported vehicles from their overseas subsiduaries. I have yet to see any of
the captive imports be properly supported. I don't know if this is becasue of low
volumes sold, differences in culture (European and Japanese car typically have a
much shorter life than US cars), or corporate bias (NIH).

Ed

 
> Subaru (any model).

Nope. Even the largest model doesn't seat more than four comfortably. Even
four are not comfortable in the forester. -Dave


 
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Joe" <[email protected] ([email protected])> wrote:
>
>>Again, shouldn't be too hard to find "facts" to contradict the facts you
>>have... No, I'm not going to do it because i know you've heard it all
>>already...
>
>
> You can't do it because there are none on your side. It's like someone
> claiming there are facts supporting creationism.

Or spontaneous emergence from the primordial soup.

Matt

 
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>Only one of those is even close to "settled" ... and even gravity hasn't
>>been explained, only accepted.
>>
>>
>>Matt
>>
>
> Gravity is an established fact. Relativity is an established fact. Atoms are
> established fact. Evolution is an established fact. Global warming from (at
> least the largest source) human activities is an established fact.

Hardly. These are nothing more than models that explain observations in
some regimes. We are always learning new things that violate our
current models and require rethinking. You wouldn't know a fact if it
sat in your lap.


> Tell me, do YOU keep up with the scientific literature?

Probably as well as you do based on your past posts.


Matt

 
Brent P wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>
>>Gravity is an established fact.
>
>
> Only that it exists. There are alot of questions about gravity that
> remain unanswered. The fundamental one is why is it so much weaker
> than other basic forces.
>
>
>>Relativity is an established fact.
>
>
> No it isn't, it's just the best we have at the momement to describe
> behaviors.
>
>
>>Atoms are established fact.
>
>
> Yet new shocking details of smaller and smaller particles are discovered
> rutinely that cause other ideas to re-evaluated. What exactly do you
> think they do with those accelerators if the facts are established?
>
>
>> Evolution is an established fact.
>
>
> It is not a "fact". It's the best explaination we have at the moment.

No, it's not even that. I don't have enough faith to believe that
humans randonly emerged from a collection of elements. Much easier to
accept that a supreme being designed and created us.

And if the big bang theory is correct, where did the matter and energy
for the big bang come from?


Matt

 
Too damn expensive and too damn small.
I don't think you get the Mitsubishi Delicia Spacegear 4x4 minivan in the
USA, but it's good here. 2.7L turbo diesel and 4X4 while carrying 8 people.

rhys

"Joe" <[email protected] ([email protected])> wrote > Subaru (any model).
>


 
In article <[email protected]>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Gravity is an established fact.
>>
>>
>> Only that it exists. There are alot of questions about gravity that
>> remain unanswered. The fundamental one is why is it so much weaker
>> than other basic forces.
>>
>>
>>>Relativity is an established fact.
>>
>>
>> No it isn't, it's just the best we have at the momement to describe
>> behaviors.
>>
>>
>>>Atoms are established fact.
>>
>>
>> Yet new shocking details of smaller and smaller particles are discovered
>> rutinely that cause other ideas to re-evaluated. What exactly do you
>> think they do with those accelerators if the facts are established?
>>
>>
>>> Evolution is an established fact.
>>
>>
>> It is not a "fact". It's the best explaination we have at the moment.

> No, it's not even that. I don't have enough faith to believe that
> humans randonly emerged from a collection of elements. Much easier to
> accept that a supreme being designed and created us.

Sorry, 'and then he created man' doesn't have the kind of supporting
evidence of evolution does. We could also toss in genetic meddling by
ETs etc, etc, but in the end evolution best explains the data we have.

> And if the big bang theory is correct, where did the matter and energy
> for the big bang come from?

And who says that evolution wasn't the process behind 'and then he
created man' ?

And now it's *REALLY* off topic.


 
Lloyd Parker wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 22 Oct 03 10:51:14 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>Yes, but the *why* is pure conjecture.
>
>
> No, the why is entirely settled.
>
>
>>I suppose that you teach that when something happens, that has
>>happened before, the latest instance must be for a different reason?
>>Is that how you teach?
>>
>
> I teach facts and science, not right-wing political propaganda.

IMHO teaching critical thinking skills is far more important than
teaching "facts." Teaching "facts" is an excellent way to stamp out the
ability of the student to think for himself.

nate

--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
http://www.toad.net/~njnagel

 
In article <[email protected]>,
Lloyd Parker <[email protected]> wrote:
>I had a 1972 Corolla that was an excellent entry-level car. Opel was also
>selling Kadetts and 1900s that were good cars.

I had a 72 Corolla too, with the 1600cc hemi engine. It was a great car
(and my first). I had it for about 5 years.


--
Mike Iglesias Email: [email protected]
University of California, Irvine phone: 949-824-6926
Network & Academic Computing Services FAX: 949-824-2069
 
C. E. White wrote:

>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>> "C. E. White" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>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.
>>
>>I had a 1972 Corolla that was an excellent entry-level car. Opel was also
>>selling Kadetts and 1900s that were good cars.
>
>
> Well it is all opinion, but I though the 70's Corollas were cramped, noisy, slow,
> and ugly. Plus even in North Carolina they rusted out in just a few years. The
> Opels were more expensive than a Pinto and, at least where I lived, poorly
> supported by Buick (same story with the Ford Cortinas). If I'd had more money, I
> probably would have bought a Capri, but the Pinto was much cheaper. For as long as
> I owned my Pinto I autocrossed it. It was not the best car in its class (and I was
> far from the best driver), but I don't recall either the Opels or the Toyotas
> being much of a treat. One of my HS chums had a 1900. My sister was still driving
> my Pinto when his 1900 was sent to the junk yard becasue it was too expensive to
> fix.
>
> The problem with captive imports is the lack of support the parent company seems
> to devote to them. GM, Ford, and even Chrysler (remember the Cricket?) have all at
> times imported vehicles from their overseas subsiduaries. I have yet to see any of
> the captive imports be properly supported. I don't know if this is becasue of low
> volumes sold, differences in culture (European and Japanese car typically have a
> much shorter life than US cars), or corporate bias (NIH).
>
> Ed
>

I'd disagree with the last statement - IME European cars have a *longer*
life than American cars. Now Japanese cars, due to their weird laws, do
seem to start falling apart around the 10 year mark.

If we're talking about *old* American cars - like 60's vintage - then
that's different. The late 60's were a good decade for cars... they had
the basics down pat but hadn't started loading vehicles up with too many
shiny baubles yet. You could probably drive one indefinately, so long
as you pick a popular model for which replacement parts are still
available (and "popular" includes a lot - I have no problems finding
Studebaker parts, at least non-body parts, for instance) and are willing
to keep up with the more frequent maintenance schedules and periodic
rebuilds of suspensions, etc.

nate

--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
http://www.toad.net/~njnagel

 

Vic Klein wrote:

> Why the reputations are better is likely due to advertising strategy,
> but the facts tell a different story. Comparing actual death rates per
> million registered vehicle years shows the following data (IIHS.ORG):
>
> Mercedes C class = 52
> Volvo 850 - 39
> Ford Expedition 4WD = 39
>
> =Vic=
> Bear Gap, PA

A very flawed metric, as it doesn't account for vehicle miles traveled.
This was discussed here (RAD) earlier this year or perhaps last year
if you feel motivated to Google for it.

nate

--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
http://www.toad.net/~njnagel

 
Dave C. wrote:

>>>Maybe because 'being safe' includes 4x4 capability for bad weather.
>>>
>>
>>Which lots of cars and minivans offer.
>
>
> Name one that is a good value for the money. (I don't really expect a reply
> here) -Dave
>
>
Subaru.

nate

--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
http://www.toad.net/~njnagel

 
Bill Funk wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 09:28:42 -0400, "rickety"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> They need to be hit pretty hard.
> Like at a closing speed of more that 40 mph, IIRC.
>
Nothing a fire bottle system cant cure.

 
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