Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

"Sean Prinz" <s_prinz> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> doesn't it if it still meets the standard for emissions? CAFE did nothing
> for pollution by "forcing" cars to get better fuel economy, it improved it
> by limiting what can come out the exhaust pipe...which has very little to
do
> with how much fuel goes in, only how efficient the engine is
>
> Sean.
>

Simple question . . . do you even know what CAFE stands for? -Dave

>
> Go drive a *modern* SUV, say the new VW or Porsche one. Then try
> to keep up with a Turbo Cayenne with a typical sport sedan.
>

What percentage of SUV drivers choose the new VW or Porsche? Heck, in ten
years, what percentage of SUVs on the road in the U.S. will be the new VW or
Porsche or similar? No, most SUVs will still be the 30-year-old truck
technology ****boxes designed and manufactured on this continent,
unfortunately. Not if *I* was buying one, and not if most readers of this
ng were buying one, either. But that's another story. -Dave

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> >
> > Go drive a *modern* SUV, say the new VW or Porsche one. Then try
> > to keep up with a Turbo Cayenne with a typical sport sedan.
> >
>
> What percentage of SUV drivers choose the new VW or Porsche? Heck, in ten
> years, what percentage of SUVs on the road in the U.S. will be the new VW or
> Porsche or similar? No, most SUVs will still be the 30-year-old truck
> technology ****boxes designed and manufactured on this continent,
> unfortunately. Not if *I* was buying one, and not if most readers of this
> ng were buying one, either. But that's another story. -Dave
>
>
>

Most SUVs are and will be car based in design. Virtually every
manufacturer now has at least two car or mini van based SUVs and the
trend will unfortunately continue until we are forced into calling a
unibody soda can with a sewing machine engine in it a "truck".
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

> Now, don't get me wrong..... when you were looking for a new vehicle, you
> were down to choosing between an F150 and a Civic?
>
> Now I can see the choice being between similar vehicles (F150, C/K1500,
> D/RAM1500 and so on) but to be down to two totally disimilar vehicles?
>
>

Not as odd as you might imagine. My wife is thinking of buying a new
vehicle. Let's see, we're down to the short list of (if she had her way) a
Trailblazer, a Forester, a (Ford minivan, name escapes me at the moment), a
Ford Explorer, a Kia Sedona, a Hyundai Santa Fe and . . . a PRELUDE!!! (do
they still make that? she used to own one and loved it, wants another) I'm
pulling for the Sedona as the least of the evils. -Dave

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> > Now, don't get me wrong..... when you were looking for a new vehicle, you
> > were down to choosing between an F150 and a Civic?
> >
> > Now I can see the choice being between similar vehicles (F150, C/K1500,
> > D/RAM1500 and so on) but to be down to two totally disimilar vehicles?
> >
> >
>
> Not as odd as you might imagine. My wife is thinking of buying a new
> vehicle. Let's see, we're down to the short list of (if she had her way) a
> Trailblazer, a Forester, a (Ford minivan, name escapes me at the moment), a
> Ford Explorer, a Kia Sedona, a Hyundai Santa Fe and . . . a PRELUDE!!! (do
> they still make that? she used to own one and loved it, wants another) I'm
> pulling for the Sedona as the least of the evils. -Dave
>
>
>

That's quite the list of mechanical nightmares (excluding the Forester).
No they don't make the Prelude anymore but she might consider a Honda
Odyssey given the other choices.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

>
> And yet 20,000 pound 18 wheelers do it every day. Isn't that odd. Must
> be the extra wheels. Or maybe it's the amphetamines.
>

Isn't it odd how statistics don't compare how many accidents were avoided by
small cars vs. the accidents avoided by larger vehicles? I'm sure it would
be a real eye-opener. Unfortunately, we'll never see the statistics for the
accidents that were avoided. -Dave

> Tell me Marc, which do you think handles better, a 2003 SUV or a 15 year
> old ****box car with bald tires? Which do you think there are more of
> on the road today? Think hard.
> --

Now fast forward fifteen years. Which do you think handles better . . . a
15 year old ****box SUV with bald tires or a 30 year old ****box car with
bald tires? Hint: It aint even close, assuming that they are both still on
the road. -Dave

>
> SUVs get 8mpg. Ya that's a good generalization. Keep'em coming.

Actually, that's pretty accurate, if we're talking about the SUVs that SELL
WELL. The ones that get good mileage are enough like cars that they don't
appeal to SUV buyers. -Dave

>
> So tells us oh great one, what car do you drive that can out climb, out
> tow, has greater cargo capacity and can handle deeper snow than whatever
> truck any of us is driving.
>

Repeal CAFE and ask us again in about ten years. -Dave

>
> Tell me Dave, out of those several (3?), which two rolled over and what
> one crashed head on into another SUV? Oh and how did you survive such a
> horrendous experience against all odds?

Well I'm not the average driver, so I was able to keep the SUVs on the road
and (amazingly) upright. Go figure. -Dave

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> > Tell me Marc, which do you think handles better, a 2003 SUV or a 15 year
> > old ****box car with bald tires? Which do you think there are more of
> > on the road today? Think hard.
> > --
>
> Now fast forward fifteen years. Which do you think handles better . . . a
> 15 year old ****box SUV with bald tires or a 30 year old ****box car with
> bald tires? Hint: It aint even close, assuming that they are both still on
> the road. -Dave
>
>
>

Fast forward 15 years and there won't be any cars left to hear you tell
it, they will all be destroyed by SUVs.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> >
> > SUVs get 8mpg. Ya that's a good generalization. Keep'em coming.
>
> Actually, that's pretty accurate, if we're talking about the SUVs that SELL
> WELL. The ones that get good mileage are enough like cars that they don't
> appeal to SUV buyers. -Dave
>
>
>

Wellt here's one that gets below 10mpg that I can think of it that one
just bearly sells at all.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

In article <[email protected]>, Dave C. wrote:

> Not as odd as you might imagine. My wife is thinking of buying a new
> vehicle. Let's see, we're down to the short list of (if she had her way) a
> Trailblazer, a Forester, a (Ford minivan, name escapes me at the moment), a
> Ford Explorer, a Kia Sedona, a Hyundai Santa Fe and . . . a PRELUDE!!! (do
> they still make that? she used to own one and loved it, wants another) I'm
> pulling for the Sedona as the least of the evils. -Dave

The forester is really just the newest version of subaru's station wagon.
They might market it differently, but it's a station wagon. (unless I
remembered wrong and now look stupid ) Not an evil thing, just a
AWD wagon in the tradition of the original AMC eagle.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> >
> > So tells us oh great one, what car do you drive that can out climb, out
> > tow, has greater cargo capacity and can handle deeper snow than whatever
> > truck any of us is driving.
> >
>
> Repeal CAFE and ask us again in about ten years. -Dave
>
>
>

Repeal CAFE and what, bring back the 454cu "family sedan"? Now there's
a plan. Offer it in 4wd and maybe I'll buy one.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

"Dave C." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >
> > SUVs get 8mpg. Ya that's a good generalization. Keep'em coming.
>
> Actually, that's pretty accurate, if we're talking about the SUVs that
SELL
> WELL. The ones that get good mileage are enough like cars that they don't
> appeal to SUV buyers. -Dave
>

My 91 GMC K2500 pickup with a 350 engine gets 17.6 MPG highway and you think
saying an SUV geting 8 MPG is accurate?
Just what SUV are you thinking of here?
Even the largest of them should get 14 or better, though I don't have
accurate numbers handy at the moment.

"Brent P" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:UTlkb.174134$%h1.168048@sccrnsc02...
> In article <[email protected]>, Ted Mittelstaedt
wrote:
>
> > This may be true, but CAFE has also saved lives, because forcing
vehicles
> > to use less fuel helps to reduce pollution, and thus fewer people dying
each
> > year as a result of pollution-related illnesses. Most likely the lives
lost by
> > one thing are balanced by the other.
>
> The pollution requirements are gram per mile. Honda civic or Ford crown
> victoria, they have to meet the same standard. The only people who die
> from CO2 are in a sealed room and don't have to worry about the cars
> going down the road.
>

It's not just the Carbon Dioxide and Carbon Monoxide from car exhaust
that is the problem. As you mention those aren't a health problem
(particularly
since carbom monoxide breaks down rapidly in the environment)

The big killer is Nitrogen Oxide and the particulates. NOX goes up and
destroys
the ozone layer

You have got to be kidding if you think that auto exhaust isn't toxic. But
obviously you do, and your going to keep believing it no matter that the
facts are otherwise.

For the non-morons in the group that are actually willing to listen, see the
following:

http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/sixpoll.html

and while your at it, take a look here for the estimated deaths as a result
of air pollution:

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata/maprisk.html

Ted

"The Ancient One" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Indiana had the lowest number of traffic fatalities in 75 years last year.
> No matter how "dangerous" you think SUV's are, they are still far safer
than
> anything built even a few years ago, so let's stop the useless arguing
that
> never accomplishes anything, and let people drive whatever they can and
want
> to buy.

This is a stupid attitude.

These studies are free information of the taking. Consumers can use them to
slightly increase their odds of surviving an auto wreck Auto manufacturers
can
use them to redesign their products to make them safer.

Unfortunately, the auto manufacturers all have your attitude - which is were
gonna
do what we keep doing and **** whatever anyone else has to say.

Thus, it's up to the consumers to force the automakers to improve their
products.
If comsumers all feel as you do, then their buying habits won't change and
the
automakers won't change. Fortunately, auto purchasers generally do seem to
care
about this kind of information, and their buying habits do change as a
result, and
as a result of that the automakers design safer cars.

There's an excellent chance that you, sir, are alive today because of a
safety
improvement in an automobile, and you may not even be aware of it. If you
ever
had a near miss that you avoided because you saw the headlights quickly
enough,
or stopped in time before smashing into something, or anything like that, or
your
mother or father or their mothers and fathers ever had such an experience,
you
should be more appreciative of the efforts of people trying to publicize
less-safe
vehicles.

Ted

"Lon Stowell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:XTjkb.588426$cF.257823@rwcrnsc53...
> Approximately 10/18/03 15:56, Dave C. uttered for posterity:
>
> >> > Nawww, he's likely to be able to steer around it very nimbly. The
SUV
> > is
> >> > more likely to hit another SUV head-on, as neither is nimble enough
to
> > avoid
> >> > the encounter. -Dave
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Don't drive much these days or pay attention to road tests, huh
Davie?
> >>
> >
> > What are you talking about? I've driven several SUVs (not by choice).
My
> > current daily driver is a Ford 4X4 pickup. It handles like crap, and
it's
> > not nearly as top-heavy as the SUVs that are based on it are. -Dave
>
> Go drive a *modern* SUV, say the new VW or Porsche one. Then try
> to keep up with a Turbo Cayenne with a typical sport sedan.
>

Whenever I look at theses two "SUVs" I keep thinking the AMC Eagle was ahead
of its time.

> --
> My governor can kick your governor's ass
>

"Nate Nagel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 18:36:07 -0400, Nate Nagel <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>>>I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
> >>>>>bought a very safe SUV.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Go figure.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Obviously, then you *expect* to wreck, as you've apparently traded
> >>>>handling for crash safety.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Nah, despite your wish that things were that simplistic, it's not
> >
> > the
> >
> >>>case.
> >>
> >>yes, actually, it is.
> >
> >
> > Uh, nope. I don't expect to wreck but I bought a very safe vehicle
> > just in case.
> >
> > Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?
> >
> >
> >>>My SUV is quite safe and handles quite well.
> >>>
> >>
> >>BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
> >
> >
> > Your cluelessness apparently knows no bounds.
> >
> >
> >>>>What are you doing reading rec.autos.DRIVING then?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Oh, part of it is the amusement derived from reading funny posts
> >
> > like
> >
> >>>yours I suppose.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>I got no problem with SUVs, as long as they are used for their
> >>>
> >>>intended
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>purpose(s) - i.e. hauling stuff, towing, off-roading. But for
> >>>
> >>>commuting
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>or store running, it's just freaking retarded.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Fortunately Nate doesn't make up the rules.
> >>>
> >>>What a great country, eh?
> >>>
> >>
> >>To paraphrase, I'll fight to the death to defend your right to make
> >
> > an
> >
> >>ass out of yourself in public. That won't stop me from laughing at
> >
> > you
> >
> >>though.
> >
> >
> > So because I drive a very safe SUV, that outhandles and outperforms
> > many passenger cars, and you can't seem to grasp that simple concept,
> > that makes me an ass?
> >
> > I guess I'll have some of what you've been smoking.
> >
>
> Many ****ty passenger cars, maybe. Good passenger cars, I doubt it.
> Either that, or it's one of those horrible car-based SUVs that are
> supposed to look like SUVs, handle like cars, and don't do either well.
>
> nate

The car based ones used to be called station wagons. Since that designation
isn't considered "cool" to the type of people (trend followers) these
vehicles are aimed at in the market place these overpriced tin cans are
designated as SUVs.

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

Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:

> Of course, the safest strategy for society would be to put an upper
> limit to the weight of passenger cars: then we all would drive safer,

What would that have to do with vehicle weight? Knowing our cars would be
tin-and-plastic pieces of **** would we all be mortally afraid to ever
pass anyone? One of the _last_ things we need on the road is an increase
in the number of timid, terrified drivers in gutless mouse-mobiles.

> spend less money on cars,

The amount of money one spends on a car is an individual's choice, up to
their limit--and by the way it is actually _more_ expensive to design a
lighter car, all else equal, than a heavier one. That's one of the main
unfortunate effects of CAFE laws--making large cars so expensive to
engineer that they become uneconomical to produce, so anyone looking for a
large, solid vehicle has to buy a truck, which is much less
crash-compatible and uses far more gas than any similarly hefty car ever
would. The only reason compact cars are less expensive in the first place
is that no one is going to pay more for less metal when they buy a car.
They're actually sold at a loss, by and large. With no large vehicles for
comparison/competition, just exactly how long would _that_ continue?


> spend less on gas, protect
> the environment, and be less dependent on unstable oil-producing
> countries.

Variable cylinder displacement and hybrid technologies will vastly reduce
the amount of fossil fuels vehicles will use, and a switch to hydrogen
fuel cell technology will end its use completely. At that point it will
not matter how much vehicles weigh as far as pollution is concerned, nor
how unstable petroleum supplies become.


> protect others,

It is not the problem of the other vehicle owner if the car you _choose_
to buy will put you at a greater disadvantage in a collision; if you don't
like the odds driving a Geo Metro, don't buy one--I certainly won't.

(This does not hold for light truck based vehicles--many of them override
automobile impact guards, which there is no excuse for.)


> Vehicles that have to be heavy
> (such as trucks, heavy duty off-roaders, buses, etc) should have their
> top speed electronically limited to low levels as to not endanger
> other vehicles on the asphalt.

This does endanger other vehicles on the asphault--much more so than
having them drive at prevailing traffic speeds. It causes irregularities
in the traffic flow as other vehicles are continuously passing them, and
also a much increased hazard for other traffic as they pull out to pass
each other--both immediately, by moving very slowly in the passing lane,
and indirectly, by creating a rolling block leading to further congestion
in the traffic flow. All of which contributes to a significantly
increased likelihood of collisions at those points.

As much truck traffic as is reasonably possible should be replaced by rail
transport--on main trunk routes the latter is much more efficient.


> Limiting the weight of vehicles is a
> win-win-win-win-win-win proposition.

No it isn't, there are and will continue to be far heavier vehicles such
as 20,000-80,000lb busses and semis, that at any remotely reasonable speed
will still have far more impact energy than any car or light truck; the
smaller vehicles will still need to be reasonably sized (e.g. ~4000 lb.
cars, which are rather moderate in weight compared to some that were
rolling off the assembly lines 25 years ago) in order to have strong
enough frames to give their occupants some semblance of a chance in a
passenger vehicle-large truck collision.


--Aardwolf.