Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#1061
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <p1g3pv4anq8l8952p2i4e4pdtub4k49j1l@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Oct 03 16:08:26 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>
>>>> Probably not, as most cars are now unibody and a "real" SUV has a beefy
>>>> full frame. So the car will "crumple" better, unless it's a really
>>>> beefy (i.e. very high speed) smack.
>>>>
>>>> nate
>>>>
>>>
>>>Not necessarily. The frames are designed to crumple as well.
>>
>>Not necessarily. Because the old designs sell so well and much so much
money
>>for the makers, there's little incentive to make cutting-edge designs.
>
>And yet, all light truck makers have redesigned their frames in the
>last few years.
>There must be more incentive than you see.
>
>
And what do they advertise? How "stiff" the frame is.
Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Oct 03 16:08:26 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>
>>>> Probably not, as most cars are now unibody and a "real" SUV has a beefy
>>>> full frame. So the car will "crumple" better, unless it's a really
>>>> beefy (i.e. very high speed) smack.
>>>>
>>>> nate
>>>>
>>>
>>>Not necessarily. The frames are designed to crumple as well.
>>
>>Not necessarily. Because the old designs sell so well and much so much
money
>>for the makers, there's little incentive to make cutting-edge designs.
>
>And yet, all light truck makers have redesigned their frames in the
>last few years.
>There must be more incentive than you see.
>
>
And what do they advertise? How "stiff" the frame is.
#1062
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <p1g3pv4anq8l8952p2i4e4pdtub4k49j1l@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Oct 03 16:08:26 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>
>>>> Probably not, as most cars are now unibody and a "real" SUV has a beefy
>>>> full frame. So the car will "crumple" better, unless it's a really
>>>> beefy (i.e. very high speed) smack.
>>>>
>>>> nate
>>>>
>>>
>>>Not necessarily. The frames are designed to crumple as well.
>>
>>Not necessarily. Because the old designs sell so well and much so much
money
>>for the makers, there's little incentive to make cutting-edge designs.
>
>And yet, all light truck makers have redesigned their frames in the
>last few years.
>There must be more incentive than you see.
>
>
And what do they advertise? How "stiff" the frame is.
Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Oct 03 16:08:26 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>
>>>> Probably not, as most cars are now unibody and a "real" SUV has a beefy
>>>> full frame. So the car will "crumple" better, unless it's a really
>>>> beefy (i.e. very high speed) smack.
>>>>
>>>> nate
>>>>
>>>
>>>Not necessarily. The frames are designed to crumple as well.
>>
>>Not necessarily. Because the old designs sell so well and much so much
money
>>for the makers, there's little incentive to make cutting-edge designs.
>
>And yet, all light truck makers have redesigned their frames in the
>last few years.
>There must be more incentive than you see.
>
>
And what do they advertise? How "stiff" the frame is.
#1063
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <p1g3pv4anq8l8952p2i4e4pdtub4k49j1l@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Oct 03 16:08:26 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>
>>>> Probably not, as most cars are now unibody and a "real" SUV has a beefy
>>>> full frame. So the car will "crumple" better, unless it's a really
>>>> beefy (i.e. very high speed) smack.
>>>>
>>>> nate
>>>>
>>>
>>>Not necessarily. The frames are designed to crumple as well.
>>
>>Not necessarily. Because the old designs sell so well and much so much
money
>>for the makers, there's little incentive to make cutting-edge designs.
>
>And yet, all light truck makers have redesigned their frames in the
>last few years.
>There must be more incentive than you see.
>
>
And what do they advertise? How "stiff" the frame is.
Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Oct 03 16:08:26 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>
>>>> Probably not, as most cars are now unibody and a "real" SUV has a beefy
>>>> full frame. So the car will "crumple" better, unless it's a really
>>>> beefy (i.e. very high speed) smack.
>>>>
>>>> nate
>>>>
>>>
>>>Not necessarily. The frames are designed to crumple as well.
>>
>>Not necessarily. Because the old designs sell so well and much so much
money
>>for the makers, there's little incentive to make cutting-edge designs.
>
>And yet, all light truck makers have redesigned their frames in the
>last few years.
>There must be more incentive than you see.
>
>
And what do they advertise? How "stiff" the frame is.
#1064
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bmsh7m$qbsk9$1@ID-137890.news.uni-berlin.de>,
"Sean Prinz" <s_prinz@msn.com> wrote:
>Cafe and pollution?? I don't know how they test where you live.....but
>here where I live there are 3 test categories....gas less than 8000 lbs, gas
>greater than 8000 lbs and diesel engines. Keep in mind that this measures
>what comes out of the exhaust pipe...so if my Jeep weighs less than 8000
>lbs...it gets the same pass-fail criteria that your moving speed bump does.
>In my opinion if my engine which is huge (fuel consumption and displacement)
>compared to the little 1-3 liter jobs in the econobox type cars yet meets
>the same standard for emissions...my engine must be more efficient. Now I
>will admit I burn more gas per mile...but that makes it even more efficient
>doesn't it if it still meets the standard for emissions?
Not necessarily -- a comparable car might come in well below the limit.
But your vehicle does contribute more to (1) using up our natural resources,
(2) importing foreign oil (with the accompanying foreign policy and defense
ramifications and adverse balance of trade), (3) putting out more greenhouse
gases, thus contributing more to global warming.
> CAFE did nothing
>for pollution by "forcing" cars to get better fuel economy, it improved it
>by limiting what can come out the exhaust pipe...which has very little to do
>with how much fuel goes in, only how efficient the engine is
>
>Sean.
>
>
>"Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote in message
>news:g4fkb.1747$np1.877@newsread3.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
>> > > CAFE has effectively limited the weight of passenger vehicles. CAFE
>has
>> > > been shown to cost lives for exactly this reason.
>> >
>> > 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.
>> >
>> > Ted
>>
>> You trade large cars for larger trucks, and you think the net result is
>less
>> fuel burned? Here's a clue: if large cars were still unrestricted by
>CAFE,
>> those large cars would benefit from some of the same technology that has
>> allowed all vehicles (SUVs included) to pollute less, per gallon burned.
>> AND, the large cars would STILL get better MPG compared to the SUVs that
>> replaced them.
>>
>> In other words, CAFE has cost lives both by reducing weight of vehicles
>AND
>> by causing vehicles to burn MORE fuel, as many people are buying large
>> trucks for the specific reason that they can not buy large cars
>> ymore. -Dave
>>
>>
>
>
"Sean Prinz" <s_prinz@msn.com> wrote:
>Cafe and pollution?? I don't know how they test where you live.....but
>here where I live there are 3 test categories....gas less than 8000 lbs, gas
>greater than 8000 lbs and diesel engines. Keep in mind that this measures
>what comes out of the exhaust pipe...so if my Jeep weighs less than 8000
>lbs...it gets the same pass-fail criteria that your moving speed bump does.
>In my opinion if my engine which is huge (fuel consumption and displacement)
>compared to the little 1-3 liter jobs in the econobox type cars yet meets
>the same standard for emissions...my engine must be more efficient. Now I
>will admit I burn more gas per mile...but that makes it even more efficient
>doesn't it if it still meets the standard for emissions?
Not necessarily -- a comparable car might come in well below the limit.
But your vehicle does contribute more to (1) using up our natural resources,
(2) importing foreign oil (with the accompanying foreign policy and defense
ramifications and adverse balance of trade), (3) putting out more greenhouse
gases, thus contributing more to global warming.
> 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.
>
>
>"Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote in message
>news:g4fkb.1747$np1.877@newsread3.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
>> > > CAFE has effectively limited the weight of passenger vehicles. CAFE
>has
>> > > been shown to cost lives for exactly this reason.
>> >
>> > This may be true, but CAFE has also saved lives, because forcing
>vehicles
>> > to use less fuel helps to reduce pollution, and thus fewer people dying
>> each
>> > year
>> > as a result of pollution-related illnesses. Most likely the lives lost
>by
>> > one
>> > thing are balanced by the other.
>> >
>> > Ted
>>
>> You trade large cars for larger trucks, and you think the net result is
>less
>> fuel burned? Here's a clue: if large cars were still unrestricted by
>CAFE,
>> those large cars would benefit from some of the same technology that has
>> allowed all vehicles (SUVs included) to pollute less, per gallon burned.
>> AND, the large cars would STILL get better MPG compared to the SUVs that
>> replaced them.
>>
>> In other words, CAFE has cost lives both by reducing weight of vehicles
>AND
>> by causing vehicles to burn MORE fuel, as many people are buying large
>> trucks for the specific reason that they can not buy large cars
>> ymore. -Dave
>>
>>
>
>
#1065
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bmsh7m$qbsk9$1@ID-137890.news.uni-berlin.de>,
"Sean Prinz" <s_prinz@msn.com> wrote:
>Cafe and pollution?? I don't know how they test where you live.....but
>here where I live there are 3 test categories....gas less than 8000 lbs, gas
>greater than 8000 lbs and diesel engines. Keep in mind that this measures
>what comes out of the exhaust pipe...so if my Jeep weighs less than 8000
>lbs...it gets the same pass-fail criteria that your moving speed bump does.
>In my opinion if my engine which is huge (fuel consumption and displacement)
>compared to the little 1-3 liter jobs in the econobox type cars yet meets
>the same standard for emissions...my engine must be more efficient. Now I
>will admit I burn more gas per mile...but that makes it even more efficient
>doesn't it if it still meets the standard for emissions?
Not necessarily -- a comparable car might come in well below the limit.
But your vehicle does contribute more to (1) using up our natural resources,
(2) importing foreign oil (with the accompanying foreign policy and defense
ramifications and adverse balance of trade), (3) putting out more greenhouse
gases, thus contributing more to global warming.
> CAFE did nothing
>for pollution by "forcing" cars to get better fuel economy, it improved it
>by limiting what can come out the exhaust pipe...which has very little to do
>with how much fuel goes in, only how efficient the engine is
>
>Sean.
>
>
>"Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote in message
>news:g4fkb.1747$np1.877@newsread3.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
>> > > CAFE has effectively limited the weight of passenger vehicles. CAFE
>has
>> > > been shown to cost lives for exactly this reason.
>> >
>> > 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.
>> >
>> > Ted
>>
>> You trade large cars for larger trucks, and you think the net result is
>less
>> fuel burned? Here's a clue: if large cars were still unrestricted by
>CAFE,
>> those large cars would benefit from some of the same technology that has
>> allowed all vehicles (SUVs included) to pollute less, per gallon burned.
>> AND, the large cars would STILL get better MPG compared to the SUVs that
>> replaced them.
>>
>> In other words, CAFE has cost lives both by reducing weight of vehicles
>AND
>> by causing vehicles to burn MORE fuel, as many people are buying large
>> trucks for the specific reason that they can not buy large cars
>> ymore. -Dave
>>
>>
>
>
"Sean Prinz" <s_prinz@msn.com> wrote:
>Cafe and pollution?? I don't know how they test where you live.....but
>here where I live there are 3 test categories....gas less than 8000 lbs, gas
>greater than 8000 lbs and diesel engines. Keep in mind that this measures
>what comes out of the exhaust pipe...so if my Jeep weighs less than 8000
>lbs...it gets the same pass-fail criteria that your moving speed bump does.
>In my opinion if my engine which is huge (fuel consumption and displacement)
>compared to the little 1-3 liter jobs in the econobox type cars yet meets
>the same standard for emissions...my engine must be more efficient. Now I
>will admit I burn more gas per mile...but that makes it even more efficient
>doesn't it if it still meets the standard for emissions?
Not necessarily -- a comparable car might come in well below the limit.
But your vehicle does contribute more to (1) using up our natural resources,
(2) importing foreign oil (with the accompanying foreign policy and defense
ramifications and adverse balance of trade), (3) putting out more greenhouse
gases, thus contributing more to global warming.
> 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.
>
>
>"Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote in message
>news:g4fkb.1747$np1.877@newsread3.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
>> > > CAFE has effectively limited the weight of passenger vehicles. CAFE
>has
>> > > been shown to cost lives for exactly this reason.
>> >
>> > This may be true, but CAFE has also saved lives, because forcing
>vehicles
>> > to use less fuel helps to reduce pollution, and thus fewer people dying
>> each
>> > year
>> > as a result of pollution-related illnesses. Most likely the lives lost
>by
>> > one
>> > thing are balanced by the other.
>> >
>> > Ted
>>
>> You trade large cars for larger trucks, and you think the net result is
>less
>> fuel burned? Here's a clue: if large cars were still unrestricted by
>CAFE,
>> those large cars would benefit from some of the same technology that has
>> allowed all vehicles (SUVs included) to pollute less, per gallon burned.
>> AND, the large cars would STILL get better MPG compared to the SUVs that
>> replaced them.
>>
>> In other words, CAFE has cost lives both by reducing weight of vehicles
>AND
>> by causing vehicles to burn MORE fuel, as many people are buying large
>> trucks for the specific reason that they can not buy large cars
>> ymore. -Dave
>>
>>
>
>
#1066
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bmsh7m$qbsk9$1@ID-137890.news.uni-berlin.de>,
"Sean Prinz" <s_prinz@msn.com> wrote:
>Cafe and pollution?? I don't know how they test where you live.....but
>here where I live there are 3 test categories....gas less than 8000 lbs, gas
>greater than 8000 lbs and diesel engines. Keep in mind that this measures
>what comes out of the exhaust pipe...so if my Jeep weighs less than 8000
>lbs...it gets the same pass-fail criteria that your moving speed bump does.
>In my opinion if my engine which is huge (fuel consumption and displacement)
>compared to the little 1-3 liter jobs in the econobox type cars yet meets
>the same standard for emissions...my engine must be more efficient. Now I
>will admit I burn more gas per mile...but that makes it even more efficient
>doesn't it if it still meets the standard for emissions?
Not necessarily -- a comparable car might come in well below the limit.
But your vehicle does contribute more to (1) using up our natural resources,
(2) importing foreign oil (with the accompanying foreign policy and defense
ramifications and adverse balance of trade), (3) putting out more greenhouse
gases, thus contributing more to global warming.
> CAFE did nothing
>for pollution by "forcing" cars to get better fuel economy, it improved it
>by limiting what can come out the exhaust pipe...which has very little to do
>with how much fuel goes in, only how efficient the engine is
>
>Sean.
>
>
>"Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote in message
>news:g4fkb.1747$np1.877@newsread3.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
>> > > CAFE has effectively limited the weight of passenger vehicles. CAFE
>has
>> > > been shown to cost lives for exactly this reason.
>> >
>> > 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.
>> >
>> > Ted
>>
>> You trade large cars for larger trucks, and you think the net result is
>less
>> fuel burned? Here's a clue: if large cars were still unrestricted by
>CAFE,
>> those large cars would benefit from some of the same technology that has
>> allowed all vehicles (SUVs included) to pollute less, per gallon burned.
>> AND, the large cars would STILL get better MPG compared to the SUVs that
>> replaced them.
>>
>> In other words, CAFE has cost lives both by reducing weight of vehicles
>AND
>> by causing vehicles to burn MORE fuel, as many people are buying large
>> trucks for the specific reason that they can not buy large cars
>> ymore. -Dave
>>
>>
>
>
"Sean Prinz" <s_prinz@msn.com> wrote:
>Cafe and pollution?? I don't know how they test where you live.....but
>here where I live there are 3 test categories....gas less than 8000 lbs, gas
>greater than 8000 lbs and diesel engines. Keep in mind that this measures
>what comes out of the exhaust pipe...so if my Jeep weighs less than 8000
>lbs...it gets the same pass-fail criteria that your moving speed bump does.
>In my opinion if my engine which is huge (fuel consumption and displacement)
>compared to the little 1-3 liter jobs in the econobox type cars yet meets
>the same standard for emissions...my engine must be more efficient. Now I
>will admit I burn more gas per mile...but that makes it even more efficient
>doesn't it if it still meets the standard for emissions?
Not necessarily -- a comparable car might come in well below the limit.
But your vehicle does contribute more to (1) using up our natural resources,
(2) importing foreign oil (with the accompanying foreign policy and defense
ramifications and adverse balance of trade), (3) putting out more greenhouse
gases, thus contributing more to global warming.
> 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.
>
>
>"Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote in message
>news:g4fkb.1747$np1.877@newsread3.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
>> > > CAFE has effectively limited the weight of passenger vehicles. CAFE
>has
>> > > been shown to cost lives for exactly this reason.
>> >
>> > This may be true, but CAFE has also saved lives, because forcing
>vehicles
>> > to use less fuel helps to reduce pollution, and thus fewer people dying
>> each
>> > year
>> > as a result of pollution-related illnesses. Most likely the lives lost
>by
>> > one
>> > thing are balanced by the other.
>> >
>> > Ted
>>
>> You trade large cars for larger trucks, and you think the net result is
>less
>> fuel burned? Here's a clue: if large cars were still unrestricted by
>CAFE,
>> those large cars would benefit from some of the same technology that has
>> allowed all vehicles (SUVs included) to pollute less, per gallon burned.
>> AND, the large cars would STILL get better MPG compared to the SUVs that
>> replaced them.
>>
>> In other words, CAFE has cost lives both by reducing weight of vehicles
>AND
>> by causing vehicles to burn MORE fuel, as many people are buying large
>> trucks for the specific reason that they can not buy large cars
>> ymore. -Dave
>>
>>
>
>
#1070
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <MPG.19fbbc841b45b685989e05@news.eastlink.ca>,
Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>In article <fAjkb.2018$np1.1501@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink. net>,
>spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com says...
>> >
>> > I don't buy this crap about vehicles being inherently bad just because
>> > of their design criterion. The problem is idiots that don't learn the
>> > characteristics of their vehicle and then drive it accordingly.
>> >
>> >
>> > Matt
>> >
>>
>> For normal driving, I'd agree with you. For sudden accident-avoidance
>> maneuvers, give me a low CG car anyday. Yes, that does make most SUV
>> designs inherently bad, IMHO. -Dave
>>
>>
>>
>
>Fortunately the majority of these mythical sudden accident avoidance
>maneuvers are only performed by Consumer Reports stunt men and Nissan's
>ad agency.
Need I remind you of:
1. The "moose" test which Swedish journalists subject cars to, which the
A-class flunked and led to its redesign;
2. The avoidance test in which Autoweek rolled a 2wd Jeep Liberty, which led
to its suspension lowering.
3. The slalom test in which C/D had 2 modified M-classes slide into and
destroy their timing lights.
>Go out into a parking lot with a front wheel drive car and
>try to J-turn it without using the parking break. Unless you are a stunt
>driver with 5 years of training I bet you can't even get the wheels 10
>feet off line before they start to understeer horribly like all front
>wheel drive cars do.
Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>In article <fAjkb.2018$np1.1501@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink. net>,
>spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com says...
>> >
>> > I don't buy this crap about vehicles being inherently bad just because
>> > of their design criterion. The problem is idiots that don't learn the
>> > characteristics of their vehicle and then drive it accordingly.
>> >
>> >
>> > Matt
>> >
>>
>> For normal driving, I'd agree with you. For sudden accident-avoidance
>> maneuvers, give me a low CG car anyday. Yes, that does make most SUV
>> designs inherently bad, IMHO. -Dave
>>
>>
>>
>
>Fortunately the majority of these mythical sudden accident avoidance
>maneuvers are only performed by Consumer Reports stunt men and Nissan's
>ad agency.
Need I remind you of:
1. The "moose" test which Swedish journalists subject cars to, which the
A-class flunked and led to its redesign;
2. The avoidance test in which Autoweek rolled a 2wd Jeep Liberty, which led
to its suspension lowering.
3. The slalom test in which C/D had 2 modified M-classes slide into and
destroy their timing lights.
>Go out into a parking lot with a front wheel drive car and
>try to J-turn it without using the parking break. Unless you are a stunt
>driver with 5 years of training I bet you can't even get the wheels 10
>feet off line before they start to understeer horribly like all front
>wheel drive cars do.