Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#1121
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F906E03.7CDE68B0@kinez.net>,
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>Hmmm - that would really inconvenience people like Babs Streisand who
>goes shopping in a motor home (not just an SUV for "special" progressive
>people) so that she won't have to use public restrooms.
I could understand this in a lot of places, but I'd think the places
Babs shops would have decent restrooms.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>Hmmm - that would really inconvenience people like Babs Streisand who
>goes shopping in a motor home (not just an SUV for "special" progressive
>people) so that she won't have to use public restrooms.
I could understand this in a lot of places, but I'd think the places
Babs shops would have decent restrooms.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
#1122
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F906E03.7CDE68B0@kinez.net>,
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>Hmmm - that would really inconvenience people like Babs Streisand who
>goes shopping in a motor home (not just an SUV for "special" progressive
>people) so that she won't have to use public restrooms.
I could understand this in a lot of places, but I'd think the places
Babs shops would have decent restrooms.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>Hmmm - that would really inconvenience people like Babs Streisand who
>goes shopping in a motor home (not just an SUV for "special" progressive
>people) so that she won't have to use public restrooms.
I could understand this in a lot of places, but I'd think the places
Babs shops would have decent restrooms.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
#1123
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F906E03.7CDE68B0@kinez.net>,
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>Hmmm - that would really inconvenience people like Babs Streisand who
>goes shopping in a motor home (not just an SUV for "special" progressive
>people) so that she won't have to use public restrooms.
I could understand this in a lot of places, but I'd think the places
Babs shops would have decent restrooms.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>Hmmm - that would really inconvenience people like Babs Streisand who
>goes shopping in a motor home (not just an SUV for "special" progressive
>people) so that she won't have to use public restrooms.
I could understand this in a lot of places, but I'd think the places
Babs shops would have decent restrooms.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
#1124
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Dori Schmetterling wrote:
> Big? Heavy?
>
> You mean it's in the same class as one of these?
> http://www.mercedes-benz.com/com/e/h...ros/index.html
>
> I never fail to be amused by what Americans call "trucks".
I never fail to be amused by what Europeans call cars.
Ed
#1125
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Dori Schmetterling wrote:
> Big? Heavy?
>
> You mean it's in the same class as one of these?
> http://www.mercedes-benz.com/com/e/h...ros/index.html
>
> I never fail to be amused by what Americans call "trucks".
I never fail to be amused by what Europeans call cars.
Ed
#1126
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Dori Schmetterling wrote:
> Big? Heavy?
>
> You mean it's in the same class as one of these?
> http://www.mercedes-benz.com/com/e/h...ros/index.html
>
> I never fail to be amused by what Americans call "trucks".
I never fail to be amused by what Europeans call cars.
Ed
#1127
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Must be your driving style. My currrent Expedition is rated 13/17. I easily beat
the 13 around town and match the 17 on a long trip. My overall avearge is around
16. The Mustang I used to own would not make either number although it wasn't to
far off. My Father's Ranger beats both numebrs easily. My old F150 will still
beat the highway number, but it sucks gas around town - probably needs some work
(it is 12 years old).
I would guess actual truck mileage suffers verus the EPA estimates becasue of
driving styles. The EPA uses the same cycle no matter what the capabilities of
the vehicle. Since a lot of trucks come with realtively powerful engines , I
imagine they can accelerate much more briskly than the EPA cycle requires. If
you use this capability, the mileage is bound to suffer.
Ed
"Dave C." wrote:
> >
> > They are *EPA estimates* for those mileages.
> > Check with just about any magazine that does tests on such vehicles,
> > and you will find very few that actually match the EPA estimates.
> > Personally, I usually get from 10% to 20% better mileage than the EPA
> > estimates, depending on what I'm carrying, and type of road travelled.
> >
>
> That's odd. Every truck or SUV I've ever driven gets about 20% less than
> the EPA estimates, lightly loaded in mostly highway driving. In contrast,
> I've never driven a car that got less than the EPA estimates, most cars beat
> the estimate by at least 10%. -Dave
the 13 around town and match the 17 on a long trip. My overall avearge is around
16. The Mustang I used to own would not make either number although it wasn't to
far off. My Father's Ranger beats both numebrs easily. My old F150 will still
beat the highway number, but it sucks gas around town - probably needs some work
(it is 12 years old).
I would guess actual truck mileage suffers verus the EPA estimates becasue of
driving styles. The EPA uses the same cycle no matter what the capabilities of
the vehicle. Since a lot of trucks come with realtively powerful engines , I
imagine they can accelerate much more briskly than the EPA cycle requires. If
you use this capability, the mileage is bound to suffer.
Ed
"Dave C." wrote:
> >
> > They are *EPA estimates* for those mileages.
> > Check with just about any magazine that does tests on such vehicles,
> > and you will find very few that actually match the EPA estimates.
> > Personally, I usually get from 10% to 20% better mileage than the EPA
> > estimates, depending on what I'm carrying, and type of road travelled.
> >
>
> That's odd. Every truck or SUV I've ever driven gets about 20% less than
> the EPA estimates, lightly loaded in mostly highway driving. In contrast,
> I've never driven a car that got less than the EPA estimates, most cars beat
> the estimate by at least 10%. -Dave
#1128
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Must be your driving style. My currrent Expedition is rated 13/17. I easily beat
the 13 around town and match the 17 on a long trip. My overall avearge is around
16. The Mustang I used to own would not make either number although it wasn't to
far off. My Father's Ranger beats both numebrs easily. My old F150 will still
beat the highway number, but it sucks gas around town - probably needs some work
(it is 12 years old).
I would guess actual truck mileage suffers verus the EPA estimates becasue of
driving styles. The EPA uses the same cycle no matter what the capabilities of
the vehicle. Since a lot of trucks come with realtively powerful engines , I
imagine they can accelerate much more briskly than the EPA cycle requires. If
you use this capability, the mileage is bound to suffer.
Ed
"Dave C." wrote:
> >
> > They are *EPA estimates* for those mileages.
> > Check with just about any magazine that does tests on such vehicles,
> > and you will find very few that actually match the EPA estimates.
> > Personally, I usually get from 10% to 20% better mileage than the EPA
> > estimates, depending on what I'm carrying, and type of road travelled.
> >
>
> That's odd. Every truck or SUV I've ever driven gets about 20% less than
> the EPA estimates, lightly loaded in mostly highway driving. In contrast,
> I've never driven a car that got less than the EPA estimates, most cars beat
> the estimate by at least 10%. -Dave
the 13 around town and match the 17 on a long trip. My overall avearge is around
16. The Mustang I used to own would not make either number although it wasn't to
far off. My Father's Ranger beats both numebrs easily. My old F150 will still
beat the highway number, but it sucks gas around town - probably needs some work
(it is 12 years old).
I would guess actual truck mileage suffers verus the EPA estimates becasue of
driving styles. The EPA uses the same cycle no matter what the capabilities of
the vehicle. Since a lot of trucks come with realtively powerful engines , I
imagine they can accelerate much more briskly than the EPA cycle requires. If
you use this capability, the mileage is bound to suffer.
Ed
"Dave C." wrote:
> >
> > They are *EPA estimates* for those mileages.
> > Check with just about any magazine that does tests on such vehicles,
> > and you will find very few that actually match the EPA estimates.
> > Personally, I usually get from 10% to 20% better mileage than the EPA
> > estimates, depending on what I'm carrying, and type of road travelled.
> >
>
> That's odd. Every truck or SUV I've ever driven gets about 20% less than
> the EPA estimates, lightly loaded in mostly highway driving. In contrast,
> I've never driven a car that got less than the EPA estimates, most cars beat
> the estimate by at least 10%. -Dave
#1129
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Must be your driving style. My currrent Expedition is rated 13/17. I easily beat
the 13 around town and match the 17 on a long trip. My overall avearge is around
16. The Mustang I used to own would not make either number although it wasn't to
far off. My Father's Ranger beats both numebrs easily. My old F150 will still
beat the highway number, but it sucks gas around town - probably needs some work
(it is 12 years old).
I would guess actual truck mileage suffers verus the EPA estimates becasue of
driving styles. The EPA uses the same cycle no matter what the capabilities of
the vehicle. Since a lot of trucks come with realtively powerful engines , I
imagine they can accelerate much more briskly than the EPA cycle requires. If
you use this capability, the mileage is bound to suffer.
Ed
"Dave C." wrote:
> >
> > They are *EPA estimates* for those mileages.
> > Check with just about any magazine that does tests on such vehicles,
> > and you will find very few that actually match the EPA estimates.
> > Personally, I usually get from 10% to 20% better mileage than the EPA
> > estimates, depending on what I'm carrying, and type of road travelled.
> >
>
> That's odd. Every truck or SUV I've ever driven gets about 20% less than
> the EPA estimates, lightly loaded in mostly highway driving. In contrast,
> I've never driven a car that got less than the EPA estimates, most cars beat
> the estimate by at least 10%. -Dave
the 13 around town and match the 17 on a long trip. My overall avearge is around
16. The Mustang I used to own would not make either number although it wasn't to
far off. My Father's Ranger beats both numebrs easily. My old F150 will still
beat the highway number, but it sucks gas around town - probably needs some work
(it is 12 years old).
I would guess actual truck mileage suffers verus the EPA estimates becasue of
driving styles. The EPA uses the same cycle no matter what the capabilities of
the vehicle. Since a lot of trucks come with realtively powerful engines , I
imagine they can accelerate much more briskly than the EPA cycle requires. If
you use this capability, the mileage is bound to suffer.
Ed
"Dave C." wrote:
> >
> > They are *EPA estimates* for those mileages.
> > Check with just about any magazine that does tests on such vehicles,
> > and you will find very few that actually match the EPA estimates.
> > Personally, I usually get from 10% to 20% better mileage than the EPA
> > estimates, depending on what I'm carrying, and type of road travelled.
> >
>
> That's odd. Every truck or SUV I've ever driven gets about 20% less than
> the EPA estimates, lightly loaded in mostly highway driving. In contrast,
> I've never driven a car that got less than the EPA estimates, most cars beat
> the estimate by at least 10%. -Dave
#1130
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Dave C. wrote:
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge> wrote in message
> news:bmvgjv030hd@enews1.newsguy.com...
>
>>While you are partly right, I again refer everyone to the HLDI studies of
>>actual loss information, SUVs come out very well compared to medium, and
>>small cars. The latter HORRID in any form of crash, and the real-world
>
> stats
>
>>prove it.
>>
>>This is all just a stupid argument, bigger is safer, get over it!
>
>
> Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
>
>
People will buy and drive what they want. The studies be dammed.
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge> wrote in message
> news:bmvgjv030hd@enews1.newsguy.com...
>
>>While you are partly right, I again refer everyone to the HLDI studies of
>>actual loss information, SUVs come out very well compared to medium, and
>>small cars. The latter HORRID in any form of crash, and the real-world
>
> stats
>
>>prove it.
>>
>>This is all just a stupid argument, bigger is safer, get over it!
>
>
> Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
>
>
People will buy and drive what they want. The studies be dammed.