I watched a show on PBS the other night all about SUV's.
To make a long story somewhat short, during the Gulf War some politicians (labeled screaming liberals) were pushing for more fuel effecient auto's, particularly SUV's.
The auto makers big claim at the time was that smaller vehicles (hence more fuel effecient) were more dangerous in crashes.
The makers didn't once mention the huge profit margins on SUV's (Up to $15,000 profit per SUV at the time).
It later came back to bite them when statistics showed that the ever larger SUV's were causing more deaths because of their large weight (4,000 lbs for an SUV versus 2,300 lbs for the average car) in crashes and their large number of rollovers.
Yes, but the SUVs are causing more deaths in the drivers of tiny fuel effecint cars that they run over, not in the SUV drivers themselves. SO, if everybody drove an SUV, what safe highways we'd have!
I didn't have a single opportunity for any road rage in your fair Cities earlier this week, somehow I feel deprived.
In my SUV, (Buick Rendezvous) which gets pretty good mileage I might add, I could see what was happening around me instead of guessing like I had to in my smaller more fuel efficient vehicle.;-)
(Since this thread is dedicated to me I thought I would start something.)
was a big expose on the 15-passenger Vans that Airports/HighSchools/Churches/Clubs/etc. use all the time for their various functions.
The problem they have is frequent roll-overs, to which many deaths in the past couple years have been attributed. And Ford KNOWS this....but doesn't care.
I appreciate Frontline---they do a lot of very informative/investigative type shows. GO PBS! lol
On the other hand an SUV wasn't and isn't designed to be driven like a car. If you want the handling and cornering of a car, buy a car, not an SUV. I owned a Bronco 2 for a while, gawd what a piece of shit that was. Anyway, It had one of the worse roll over rates with the high center of gravity but I knew this as anyone could by reading the manual. Heck even a warning label on the visor. Hence I didn't drive it like I had driven cars that I owned. People know this and yet it is somehow Ford's fault that people are weaving in and out of trafic or turning too fast ? If I was driving a motorcycle in the snow and wiped out is it Harley's fault ? No I would be misusing the vehicle. Same as roll overs with SUV's. Remember Nader and his srusade against corvair's ? or datelines piece on chevy trucks gas tank blowing up that both turned out to false.
As far as the assertion that SUV's are killing their own drivers although it might be true in the case of rollovers in which driver error is likeley the cause you have a much better chance of surviving than you do in some little speck.
Yes they are heavier and bigger hence safer, bigger and heavier also equals yes less gas milage. It's a trade off no doubt, but frankly people who dislike SUV's say little or nothing of semi's, talk about non fuel efficient big vehicles that you will be on the losing end of in an accident. What about pickups ? Larger commercial vehicles ? But why no outcry over that ? My guess is that they dislike the fact that others have or own them. It's a lifestyle choice. And see them as some evil thing.
The last time I looked it was still America and people should be free to buy and drive what they want. Personally I don't own one but I should be able to decide something safer for my family that fits my needs. Be careful who you let determine what you buy.
I'm all for freedom. My gripe is that quite a few people who buy the fuel inefficent vehicles also expect the government to change laws to require tighter emissions. If they actually cared about emissions, they shouldn't be driving gas whores. Buy the SUV if you want it. But do you really need 4-wheel drive and a 5.8-liter V-8 engine to haul 2 adults and 2.2 kids? They make smaller engines and 2-wheel drive units. It is just like heating in Minnesota. Would anyone here really want to use electric baseboard heating? It costs more and is less efficient than other heating methods that will do the same job. If you want it, feel free to buy it. Just don't bitch about how high your energy costs are.
I'm all for freedom. My gripe is that quite a few people who buy the fuel inefficent vehicles also expect the government to change laws to require tighter emissions.
I don't think anyone who buys them is doing so for the mileage or are bitching about emissions. People who don't own them like me were unhappy when gas was over 2.00 last year. And it wasn't because I owned an suv.
Buy the SUV if you want it. But do you really need 4-wheel drive and a 5.8-liter V-8 engine to haul 2 adults and 2.2 kids?
Bigger vehicles that are safer require more power. Also if you are pulling boat, snowmobiles, a trailer with lumber etc. a camper it's nice to actually be able to do the speed limit. There are also sports cars out there that get worse mileage than some SUV's why don't people compalin about them if mileage is the big issue, why not semi's ?
So now we should decide or chide someone for what they but, who decides what someone "needs" Now do we all really "need" the things we buy or have ? Do you need a nicer house ? do you need a dvd player ? Do you need a Harley ? No probalby not. But I see the assault or the demonization of the SUV as a dislike of a lifestyle and a disdain for their choices. But I hope those who are doing this remember when it's their time or something they wish to purchase. I think people need to worry more about themselves before we try to demonize those who own them.
That is scary Ares, but which one would you rather drive ? :)
I really don't think as some there is some big conspiracy between Ford and Amoco. If Ford could build an engine along the lines of a 5.8 litre v-8 that had the same or similar performance that also got 43 miles to the gallon they wouldn't hesitate to build them because people would by them hand over fist. The other thought is that if that was possible or happens the only thing that will happen is that supply/demand would catch up and now say all vehicles are getting say 40 mph gas would be 5.00 a gallon becuase they are sellign less. Not that that would be all bad. I hope and think we will find a PRACTICAL solution to replacing the combustion engine it will happen becasuse people want it and there is a market for it.
tough call, luv :) of course the tempo gets worse mileage than it should, because 1) its got a decade on my mustang and 2) its got a 3-spd auto, while the mustang's a 5-speed.
the first thing that will increase mileage in engines is dohc. the second thing is a turbocharger. get more power out of a smaller engine, which is inherently more efficient. you're already seeing both of these show up.
I drove a Maxima as a rental car on a business trip that had that. Maaan could that thing move. WOW. made it even more fun that it was a rental :)
I know many use this technology, the only drawback I've heard of is cost of maintenence and more needed mainteneence because of the high revving nature of the engines.
And Ares I take exception and offense to your assumption that I woul beat on a rental car....how dare you. I treat them just as I would my own vehicle as gentle as a newborn babe.....:)
P.S i have some land in Palestine to sell you too. :)
I'm not saying not to buy the SUV or sports car. I just get upset when people buy the big gas hog polluting SUVs and sports cars and have the balls to then go to the state and the feds and say "Please save us from ourselves! Our air is so dirty! The ozone shields are failing! Global warming will melt Minnesota in 10 years! We need warning labels on french fries boxes because they contain carcinogens!" It drives me nuts.
probably not as bad as when i last had a rental, rob, set the e-brake, and stepped on the gas as hard as i could. i almost needed to clean out my pants when i realised that the abs system had kicked in!
It is easy to be safest mini-van "in its class". The "in its class" makes for some subjective comparisons. It's all a marketing gimmick. It is like ivory soap: 99.99% pure.....pure what?
I see your point absolutely but I don't think the majority of people driving SUV's are the ones saying it, but you are 100% right the worse ones are the hypocrites who do that and go to the sierra club meeting in their Excursion. I used to laugh when I would see Gore capmaigning, remember he was the guy in his book who told us that the car was the biggest danger to mankind. And he drove in an entourage of 6 Suburbans and flew a 747 around the country that burns about 300 gal. of fuel just on take off. Now I don't mind that he and others do it but spare me the lecture Al. It's the same as the anti sprawl people who just so happen to live in the suburbs.
It is easy to be safest mini-van "in its class". The "in its class" makes for some subjective comparisons. It's all a marketing gimmick. It is like ivory soap: 99.99% pure.....pure what?
LOL, good point CSC.
We could actually build cars that were damn near indestructible in accidents. Take a look at NASCAR. Ever wonder how many of those horrid looking crashes happen at 160mph and the guy walks out ? It's because of the safety systems they have, hell we could all drive tanks too but no one could afford them. Cars are safer than they ever were, there also comes a risk in anything we do but it also seems to me that more times than one we either trying to make life risk free or also trying to blame the car instead of the driver, much like the gun debate. It's an inanimate object that requires human control and input. Use bad control or input and the result is accidents.
BTW does anyone on here own an Aztec ? If you do no offense but damn those things are wierd and dare I say ugly looking. They look like they were designed on a miter box.
The inside of the Aztec is pretty nice and has some cool features but the outside.....Well....ummm to each thier own I guess.
Something happened to me today on the way to work. And it's something I've seen more of. I was in the fast lane and there were cars in front of me but the guy behind me was going nuts about getting around me so I moved over so he could now stare at the back of the same car I had been for the last 2 miles. I pulled into the slow lane. He got by me and then pulled in front of me right away and was going slower than I had originally gone. Now we were both screwed because we couldn't get back in the fast lane. It's like people just have to be in front of you and when they do they love to cut in quick like we are in a race which of course it always ticks me off because I like to actually leave at least a few car lenghts in front of me unlike some who are on your bumper the whole time. I think i'm going to quit moving over, I know it sucks when people do it but everytime I do I end up getting screwed. I won't be in the fast lane though unless I'm going as fast as everyone.
I think Aztecs are ugly too, however I own a Buick Rendezvous.....which looks a bit like the Aztec, but Looonger and better proportioned. I really love the way it drives and the Versitrax feature is great in snow.
It is an especially comfortable ride as well. the seats are off the floor and almost chair high. Has a great sound system, too...and you all know that's probably the most important thing about a vehicle except for the color...;-)
Are you receiving me?
vroooooooooommmm.
sorry did i run over you?
I watched a show on PBS the other night all about SUV's.
To make a long story somewhat short, during the Gulf War some politicians (labeled screaming liberals) were pushing for more fuel effecient auto's, particularly SUV's.
The auto makers big claim at the time was that smaller vehicles (hence more fuel effecient) were more dangerous in crashes.
The makers didn't once mention the huge profit margins on SUV's (Up to $15,000 profit per SUV at the time).
It later came back to bite them when statistics showed that the ever larger SUV's were causing more deaths because of their large weight (4,000 lbs for an SUV versus 2,300 lbs for the average car) in crashes and their large number of rollovers.
Yes, but the SUVs are causing more deaths in the drivers of tiny fuel effecint cars that they run over, not in the SUV drivers themselves. SO, if everybody drove an SUV, what safe highways we'd have!
For the most part, that's true but, overall their killing more people. They're also killing themselves a lot more by rolling over.
I didn't have a single opportunity for any road rage in your fair Cities earlier this week, somehow I feel deprived.
In my SUV, (Buick Rendezvous) which gets pretty good mileage I might add, I could see what was happening around me instead of guessing like I had to in my smaller more fuel efficient vehicle.;-)
(Since this thread is dedicated to me I thought I would start something.)
Hi, Lady Lou...
Good to see you here...
was a big expose on the 15-passenger Vans that
Airports/HighSchools/Churches/Clubs/etc.
use all the time for their various functions.
The problem they have is frequent roll-overs, to
which many deaths in the past couple years
have been attributed.
And Ford KNOWS this....but doesn't care.
I appreciate Frontline---they do a lot of very
informative/investigative type shows.
GO PBS! lol
Ford knows the Explorer is deadly too but they blame it on the Firestone tires that FORD designed. They rank right up there with the likes of Enron.
On the other hand an SUV wasn't and isn't designed to be driven like a car. If you want the handling and cornering of a car, buy a car, not an SUV. I owned a Bronco 2 for a while, gawd what a piece of shit that was. Anyway, It had one of the worse roll over rates with the high center of gravity but I knew this as anyone could by reading the manual. Heck even a warning label on the visor. Hence I didn't drive it like I had driven cars that I owned. People know this and yet it is somehow Ford's fault that people are weaving in and out of trafic or turning too fast ? If I was driving a motorcycle in the snow and wiped out is it Harley's fault ? No I would be misusing the vehicle. Same as roll overs with SUV's. Remember Nader and his srusade against corvair's ? or datelines piece on chevy trucks gas tank blowing up that both turned out to false.
As far as the assertion that SUV's are killing their own drivers although it might be true in the case of rollovers in which driver error is likeley the cause you have a much better chance of surviving than you do in some little speck.
Yes they are heavier and bigger hence safer, bigger and heavier also equals yes less gas milage. It's a trade off no doubt, but frankly people who dislike SUV's say little or nothing of semi's, talk about non fuel efficient big vehicles that you will be on the losing end of in an accident. What about pickups ? Larger commercial vehicles ? But why no outcry over that ? My guess is that they dislike the fact that others have or own them. It's a lifestyle choice. And see them as some evil thing.
The last time I looked it was still America and people should be free to buy and drive what they want. Personally I don't own one but I should be able to decide something safer for my family that fits my needs. Be careful who you let determine what you buy.
I'm all for freedom. My gripe is that quite a few people who buy the fuel inefficent vehicles also expect the government to change laws to require tighter emissions. If they actually cared about emissions, they shouldn't be driving gas whores. Buy the SUV if you want it. But do you really need 4-wheel drive and a 5.8-liter V-8 engine to haul 2 adults and 2.2 kids? They make smaller engines and 2-wheel drive units. It is just like heating in Minnesota. Would anyone here really want to use electric baseboard heating? It costs more and is less efficient than other heating methods that will do the same job. If you want it, feel free to buy it. Just don't bitch about how high your energy costs are.
CSC,
I don't think anyone who buys them is doing so for the mileage or are bitching about emissions. People who don't own them like me were unhappy when gas was over 2.00 last year. And it wasn't because I owned an suv.
Bigger vehicles that are safer require more power. Also if you are pulling boat, snowmobiles, a trailer with lumber etc. a camper it's nice to actually be able to do the speed limit. There are also sports cars out there that get worse mileage than some SUV's why don't people compalin about them if mileage is the big issue, why not semi's ?
So now we should decide or chide someone for what they but, who decides what someone "needs" Now do we all really "need" the things we buy or have ? Do you need a nicer house ? do you need a dvd player ? Do you need a Harley ? No probalby not.
But I see the assault or the demonization of the SUV as a dislike of a lifestyle and a disdain for their choices. But I hope those who are doing this remember when it's their time or something they wish to purchase. I think people need to worry more about themselves before we try to demonize those who own them.
what's scary is that my mustang with its 4.6l v8 gets as good, if not better, mileage than my 92 tempo with a 2.3l i-4.
That is scary Ares, but which one would you rather drive ? :)
I really don't think as some there is some big conspiracy between Ford and Amoco. If Ford could build an engine along the lines of a 5.8 litre v-8 that had the same or similar performance that also got 43 miles to the gallon they wouldn't hesitate to build them because people would by them hand over fist. The other thought is that if that was possible or happens the only thing that will happen is that supply/demand would catch up and now say all vehicles are getting say 40 mph gas would be 5.00 a gallon becuase they are sellign less. Not that that would be all bad. I hope and think we will find a PRACTICAL solution to replacing the combustion engine it will happen becasuse people want it and there is a market for it.
tough call, luv :) of course the tempo gets worse mileage than it should, because 1) its got a decade on my mustang and 2) its got a 3-spd auto, while the mustang's a 5-speed.
the first thing that will increase mileage in engines is dohc. the second thing is a turbocharger. get more power out of a smaller engine, which is inherently more efficient. you're already seeing both of these show up.
I drove a Maxima as a rental car on a business trip that had that. Maaan could that thing move. WOW. made it even more fun that it was a rental :)
I know many use this technology, the only drawback I've heard of is cost of maintenence and more needed mainteneence because of the high revving nature of the engines.
hey, rentals are for beating the hell out of. otherwise they wouldn't be rentals, would they? :)
and yup on the maintenance of blowers. its a very pricey fix. about 4 grand specifically on the pontiac grand prix gtp.
4,000 to fix it ? woooooo > Ouch.
And Ares I take exception and offense to your assumption that I woul beat on a rental car....how dare you. I treat them just as I would my own vehicle as gentle as a newborn babe.....:)
P.S i have some land in Palestine to sell you too. :)
your offence is noted, rob :)
Are nuetral drop considered bad ? ;)
Rob:
I'm not saying not to buy the SUV or sports car. I just get upset when people buy the big gas hog polluting SUVs and sports cars and have the balls to then go to the state and the feds and say "Please save us from ourselves! Our air is so dirty! The ozone shields are failing! Global warming will melt Minnesota in 10 years! We need warning labels on french fries boxes because they contain carcinogens!" It drives me nuts.
probably not as bad as when i last had a rental, rob, set the e-brake, and stepped on the gas as hard as i could. i almost needed to clean out my pants when i realised that the abs system had kicked in!
csc: exactly.
Ford Windstar is rated as the safest van made...how did they do that?
It is easy to be safest mini-van "in its class". The "in its class" makes for some subjective comparisons. It's all a marketing gimmick. It is like ivory soap: 99.99% pure.....pure what?
CSC,
I see your point absolutely but I don't think the majority of people driving SUV's are the ones saying it, but you are 100% right the worse ones are the hypocrites who do that and go to the sierra club meeting in their Excursion. I used to laugh when I would see Gore capmaigning, remember he was the guy in his book who told us that the car was the biggest danger to mankind. And he drove in an entourage of 6 Suburbans and flew a 747 around the country that burns about 300 gal. of fuel just on take off. Now I don't mind that he and others do it but spare me the lecture Al. It's the same as the anti sprawl people who just so happen to live in the suburbs.
LOL, good point CSC.
We could actually build cars that were damn near indestructible in accidents. Take a look at NASCAR. Ever wonder how many of those horrid looking crashes happen at 160mph and the guy walks out ? It's because of the safety systems they have, hell we could all drive tanks too but no one could afford them. Cars are safer than they ever were, there also comes a risk in anything we do but it also seems to me that more times than one we either trying to make life risk free or also trying to blame the car instead of the driver, much like the gun debate. It's an inanimate object that requires human control and input. Use bad control or input and the result is accidents.
BTW does anyone on here own an Aztec ? If you do no offense but damn those things are wierd and dare I say ugly looking. They look like they were designed on a miter box.
They look like they were designed on a miter box.
Great description! They are ugly.
The all New pontiac aztec, brought to you by the Pacer and Gremlin design team.
I heard a great line once about the Pacer.
I can't believe someone stepped back from a clay model of that and said "Yep, that's it ! "
My Mom owned a Pacer once.
True story.
She loved it.
Mother's obviously not well.
:-)
I kinda like the look of the Aztec
The inside of the Aztec is pretty nice and has some cool features but the outside.....Well....ummm to each thier own I guess.
Something happened to me today on the way to work. And it's something I've seen more of.
I was in the fast lane and there were cars in front of me but the guy behind me was going nuts about getting around me so I moved over so he could now stare at the back of the same car I had been for the last 2 miles. I pulled into the slow lane. He got by me and then pulled in front of me right away and was going slower than I had originally gone. Now we were both screwed because we couldn't get back in the fast lane. It's like people just have to be in front of you and when they do they love to cut in quick like we are in a race which of course it always ticks me off because I like to actually leave at least a few car lenghts in front of me unlike some who are on your bumper the whole time. I think i'm going to quit moving over, I know it sucks when people do it but everytime I do I end up getting screwed. I won't be in the fast lane though unless I'm going as fast as everyone.
People are crazy these days. It's like a game to them.
I don't get it, I'd rather get myself & family home safe, rather than 3 minutes sooner.
One of the reasons I ride the bus.
The bus is safer ? :)
That's what the guy who got on the train last week said :)
I'm not saying it's any safer. But I don't have to put up with the stress.
I've seen some of the people that ride the bus. That's more stress than I want to handle.
:-)
What are you trying to say about me THX? ;)
I didn't mean YOU. Oh, no!
Maybe that's why nobody ever sits with me.
I think Aztecs are ugly too, however I own a Buick Rendezvous.....which looks a bit like the Aztec, but Looonger and better proportioned. I really love the way it drives and the Versitrax feature is great in snow.
It is an especially comfortable ride as well. the seats are off the floor and almost chair high. Has a great sound system, too...and you all know that's probably the most important thing about a vehicle except for the color...;-)
Rendezvous? Is that the car that Tiger Woods is pitching on TV as of late? You wanna talk ugly! ;-)
the azteks and rendevous's *both* fall in the same ugly category as the extended versions of the ford focus. they make me want to vomit.
I like the head and taillights on the focus. Other than that, it's ugly.
the 4-door focus is cool provided it's got a spoiler on it. my aunt bought a brand new one in 2000. they kinda grow on ya.
they kinda grow on ya
So does fungus. Doesn't make me want either.
So does fungus.
you may wanna think about seeing a doctor about that.
actually i do have one problem with the focus. the lack of availability of a v-6 engine. not even in the svt version. ick.
Ares:
Here's another reason not to buy the Focus. It lacks the ability to release the throttle after cruise control is used.
you're kidding, right?
actually, the vehicle i truly want would be a 2000 svt contour. i've got the svt cobra for the summer, but kinda need something for the winter.
Nope, not kidding Ares. There is an ongoing recall for this.
I am partial to the Prowler myself.
not in the winter, i'd imagine though :)