Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Plenty decent that runs on diesel, they're just not released in the US cause
petrol is so cheap and people don't buy em.
rhys
"Matthew Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:2tqdnWdatcOAYg6iRTvUrg@speakeasy.net...
> In article <MPG.19fbbdcbbbd459b8989e0b@news.eastlink.ca>,
> Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >
> >> >>
> >> >CAFE is a result of the enviro-wackos.
> >> >
> >> Yeah, bring back carburetors, 4-speed manuals, drum brakes, and all the
other
> >> 60s crap.
> >>
> >> CAFE is one reason we get cars like the M3, E55, S4, etc.
> >>
> >
> >And don't get anything decent that runs on diesel.
>
> There is nothing decent that runs on diesel. By definition.
>
>
> --
> 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.
petrol is so cheap and people don't buy em.
rhys
"Matthew Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:2tqdnWdatcOAYg6iRTvUrg@speakeasy.net...
> In article <MPG.19fbbdcbbbd459b8989e0b@news.eastlink.ca>,
> Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >
> >> >>
> >> >CAFE is a result of the enviro-wackos.
> >> >
> >> Yeah, bring back carburetors, 4-speed manuals, drum brakes, and all the
other
> >> 60s crap.
> >>
> >> CAFE is one reason we get cars like the M3, E55, S4, etc.
> >>
> >
> >And don't get anything decent that runs on diesel.
>
> There is nothing decent that runs on diesel. By definition.
>
>
> --
> 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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <r5c8pvovm67vpkaclk2ak2our0fn46g4cb@4ax.com>, Bill Funk wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:18:01 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>>In article <1Vlkb.814725$Ho3.223551@sccrnsc03>,
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>In article <bms79l$6me$19@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>
>>>> CAFE is one reason we get cars like the M3, E55, S4, etc.
>>>
>>>No. We get them because their manufacturers (at least BMW) choose to ignore
>>>CAFE and pass the tax on to the buyers.
>>>
>>
>>No, because the makers had to make smaller, lighter, yet still
>>high-performance vehicles. Without CAFE, we'd still be driving what we were
>>in the early 70s. 5000-lb lumbering land yachts.
>
> It isn't odd at all that you completely ignore market pressures, and
> instead think that the Government is the instigator of all innovation.
> People like you tend to think that way.
> You're wrong, though.
That's lloyd's politics, and that clouds everything he posts.
What actually happened, started before 1976. With the gasoline crunches
people started buying imported cars with different characteristics
in handling, braking, etc. When all that ended people stayed with them.
The big three had to react, government or not.
Now let's say the big three never reacted and managed to stay in business.
We'd still be able to buy the kinds of cars we have today from the
overseas manufacturers.
But what would have really happened without CAFE? I think we'd have
some really great choices in I6 and V8 RWD cars. Basically the kinds
of cars ford and GM offer in Austrailia.
> On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:18:01 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>>In article <1Vlkb.814725$Ho3.223551@sccrnsc03>,
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>In article <bms79l$6me$19@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>
>>>> CAFE is one reason we get cars like the M3, E55, S4, etc.
>>>
>>>No. We get them because their manufacturers (at least BMW) choose to ignore
>>>CAFE and pass the tax on to the buyers.
>>>
>>
>>No, because the makers had to make smaller, lighter, yet still
>>high-performance vehicles. Without CAFE, we'd still be driving what we were
>>in the early 70s. 5000-lb lumbering land yachts.
>
> It isn't odd at all that you completely ignore market pressures, and
> instead think that the Government is the instigator of all innovation.
> People like you tend to think that way.
> You're wrong, though.
That's lloyd's politics, and that clouds everything he posts.
What actually happened, started before 1976. With the gasoline crunches
people started buying imported cars with different characteristics
in handling, braking, etc. When all that ended people stayed with them.
The big three had to react, government or not.
Now let's say the big three never reacted and managed to stay in business.
We'd still be able to buy the kinds of cars we have today from the
overseas manufacturers.
But what would have really happened without CAFE? I think we'd have
some really great choices in I6 and V8 RWD cars. Basically the kinds
of cars ford and GM offer in Austrailia.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <r5c8pvovm67vpkaclk2ak2our0fn46g4cb@4ax.com>, Bill Funk wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:18:01 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>>In article <1Vlkb.814725$Ho3.223551@sccrnsc03>,
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>In article <bms79l$6me$19@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>
>>>> CAFE is one reason we get cars like the M3, E55, S4, etc.
>>>
>>>No. We get them because their manufacturers (at least BMW) choose to ignore
>>>CAFE and pass the tax on to the buyers.
>>>
>>
>>No, because the makers had to make smaller, lighter, yet still
>>high-performance vehicles. Without CAFE, we'd still be driving what we were
>>in the early 70s. 5000-lb lumbering land yachts.
>
> It isn't odd at all that you completely ignore market pressures, and
> instead think that the Government is the instigator of all innovation.
> People like you tend to think that way.
> You're wrong, though.
That's lloyd's politics, and that clouds everything he posts.
What actually happened, started before 1976. With the gasoline crunches
people started buying imported cars with different characteristics
in handling, braking, etc. When all that ended people stayed with them.
The big three had to react, government or not.
Now let's say the big three never reacted and managed to stay in business.
We'd still be able to buy the kinds of cars we have today from the
overseas manufacturers.
But what would have really happened without CAFE? I think we'd have
some really great choices in I6 and V8 RWD cars. Basically the kinds
of cars ford and GM offer in Austrailia.
> On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:18:01 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>>In article <1Vlkb.814725$Ho3.223551@sccrnsc03>,
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>In article <bms79l$6me$19@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>
>>>> CAFE is one reason we get cars like the M3, E55, S4, etc.
>>>
>>>No. We get them because their manufacturers (at least BMW) choose to ignore
>>>CAFE and pass the tax on to the buyers.
>>>
>>
>>No, because the makers had to make smaller, lighter, yet still
>>high-performance vehicles. Without CAFE, we'd still be driving what we were
>>in the early 70s. 5000-lb lumbering land yachts.
>
> It isn't odd at all that you completely ignore market pressures, and
> instead think that the Government is the instigator of all innovation.
> People like you tend to think that way.
> You're wrong, though.
That's lloyd's politics, and that clouds everything he posts.
What actually happened, started before 1976. With the gasoline crunches
people started buying imported cars with different characteristics
in handling, braking, etc. When all that ended people stayed with them.
The big three had to react, government or not.
Now let's say the big three never reacted and managed to stay in business.
We'd still be able to buy the kinds of cars we have today from the
overseas manufacturers.
But what would have really happened without CAFE? I think we'd have
some really great choices in I6 and V8 RWD cars. Basically the kinds
of cars ford and GM offer in Austrailia.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <r5c8pvovm67vpkaclk2ak2our0fn46g4cb@4ax.com>, Bill Funk wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:18:01 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>>In article <1Vlkb.814725$Ho3.223551@sccrnsc03>,
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>In article <bms79l$6me$19@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>
>>>> CAFE is one reason we get cars like the M3, E55, S4, etc.
>>>
>>>No. We get them because their manufacturers (at least BMW) choose to ignore
>>>CAFE and pass the tax on to the buyers.
>>>
>>
>>No, because the makers had to make smaller, lighter, yet still
>>high-performance vehicles. Without CAFE, we'd still be driving what we were
>>in the early 70s. 5000-lb lumbering land yachts.
>
> It isn't odd at all that you completely ignore market pressures, and
> instead think that the Government is the instigator of all innovation.
> People like you tend to think that way.
> You're wrong, though.
That's lloyd's politics, and that clouds everything he posts.
What actually happened, started before 1976. With the gasoline crunches
people started buying imported cars with different characteristics
in handling, braking, etc. When all that ended people stayed with them.
The big three had to react, government or not.
Now let's say the big three never reacted and managed to stay in business.
We'd still be able to buy the kinds of cars we have today from the
overseas manufacturers.
But what would have really happened without CAFE? I think we'd have
some really great choices in I6 and V8 RWD cars. Basically the kinds
of cars ford and GM offer in Austrailia.
> On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:18:01 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>>In article <1Vlkb.814725$Ho3.223551@sccrnsc03>,
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>In article <bms79l$6me$19@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>
>>>> CAFE is one reason we get cars like the M3, E55, S4, etc.
>>>
>>>No. We get them because their manufacturers (at least BMW) choose to ignore
>>>CAFE and pass the tax on to the buyers.
>>>
>>
>>No, because the makers had to make smaller, lighter, yet still
>>high-performance vehicles. Without CAFE, we'd still be driving what we were
>>in the early 70s. 5000-lb lumbering land yachts.
>
> It isn't odd at all that you completely ignore market pressures, and
> instead think that the Government is the instigator of all innovation.
> People like you tend to think that way.
> You're wrong, though.
That's lloyd's politics, and that clouds everything he posts.
What actually happened, started before 1976. With the gasoline crunches
people started buying imported cars with different characteristics
in handling, braking, etc. When all that ended people stayed with them.
The big three had to react, government or not.
Now let's say the big three never reacted and managed to stay in business.
We'd still be able to buy the kinds of cars we have today from the
overseas manufacturers.
But what would have really happened without CAFE? I think we'd have
some really great choices in I6 and V8 RWD cars. Basically the kinds
of cars ford and GM offer in Austrailia.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:22:12 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <MPG.19fbd425bcc7fbbb989e1c@news.eastlink.ca>,
> Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>In article <MVmkb.2269$np1.130@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.n et>,
>>spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com 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.
>Suburban, Tahoe, Yukon, Hummer, Escalade, Escalade EXT, Escalade ESL, Hummer
>H1, Hummer H2, Expedition, Excursion, Durango, Range Rover.
>
>Try looking at the real mpg reported in road tests.
yeah, lets:
http://money.cnn.com/pf/autos/featur...age/page3.html
wrote:
>In article <MPG.19fbd425bcc7fbbb989e1c@news.eastlink.ca>,
> Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>In article <MVmkb.2269$np1.130@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.n et>,
>>spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com says...
>>> >
>>> > SUVs get 8mpg. Ya that's a good generalization. Keep'em coming.
>>>
>>> Actually, that's pretty accurate, if we're talking about the SUVs that SELL
>>> WELL. The ones that get good mileage are enough like cars that they don't
>>> appeal to SUV buyers. -Dave
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Wellt here's one that gets below 10mpg that I can think of it that one
>>just bearly sells at all.
>Suburban, Tahoe, Yukon, Hummer, Escalade, Escalade EXT, Escalade ESL, Hummer
>H1, Hummer H2, Expedition, Excursion, Durango, Range Rover.
>
>Try looking at the real mpg reported in road tests.
yeah, lets:
http://money.cnn.com/pf/autos/featur...age/page3.html
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:22:12 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <MPG.19fbd425bcc7fbbb989e1c@news.eastlink.ca>,
> Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>In article <MVmkb.2269$np1.130@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.n et>,
>>spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com 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.
>Suburban, Tahoe, Yukon, Hummer, Escalade, Escalade EXT, Escalade ESL, Hummer
>H1, Hummer H2, Expedition, Excursion, Durango, Range Rover.
>
>Try looking at the real mpg reported in road tests.
yeah, lets:
http://money.cnn.com/pf/autos/featur...age/page3.html
wrote:
>In article <MPG.19fbd425bcc7fbbb989e1c@news.eastlink.ca>,
> Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>In article <MVmkb.2269$np1.130@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.n et>,
>>spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com says...
>>> >
>>> > SUVs get 8mpg. Ya that's a good generalization. Keep'em coming.
>>>
>>> Actually, that's pretty accurate, if we're talking about the SUVs that SELL
>>> WELL. The ones that get good mileage are enough like cars that they don't
>>> appeal to SUV buyers. -Dave
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Wellt here's one that gets below 10mpg that I can think of it that one
>>just bearly sells at all.
>Suburban, Tahoe, Yukon, Hummer, Escalade, Escalade EXT, Escalade ESL, Hummer
>H1, Hummer H2, Expedition, Excursion, Durango, Range Rover.
>
>Try looking at the real mpg reported in road tests.
yeah, lets:
http://money.cnn.com/pf/autos/featur...age/page3.html
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:22:12 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <MPG.19fbd425bcc7fbbb989e1c@news.eastlink.ca>,
> Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>In article <MVmkb.2269$np1.130@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.n et>,
>>spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com 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.
>Suburban, Tahoe, Yukon, Hummer, Escalade, Escalade EXT, Escalade ESL, Hummer
>H1, Hummer H2, Expedition, Excursion, Durango, Range Rover.
>
>Try looking at the real mpg reported in road tests.
yeah, lets:
http://money.cnn.com/pf/autos/featur...age/page3.html
wrote:
>In article <MPG.19fbd425bcc7fbbb989e1c@news.eastlink.ca>,
> Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>In article <MVmkb.2269$np1.130@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.n et>,
>>spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com 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.
>Suburban, Tahoe, Yukon, Hummer, Escalade, Escalade EXT, Escalade ESL, Hummer
>H1, Hummer H2, Expedition, Excursion, Durango, Range Rover.
>
>Try looking at the real mpg reported in road tests.
yeah, lets:
http://money.cnn.com/pf/autos/featur...age/page3.html
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 16:28:41 GMT, "Dave C."
<spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote:
>> >
>> Different driving styles, I suppose.
>> Maybe you're one of those who drive SUVs as if they were sports cars?
>> :-)
>>
>
>Actually, I baby the heck out of trucks and SUVs as I know they don't handle
>well. In contrast, I drive cars like I HATE them. Maybe I should start
>driving my 2003 4.0L 4X4 Ranger like it is a sports car, and see if the
>mileage improves? :) -Dave
>
Maybe.
I often wonder why some people have far worse experience than others,
all the while claiming that they are doing everything right.
<spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote:
>> >
>> Different driving styles, I suppose.
>> Maybe you're one of those who drive SUVs as if they were sports cars?
>> :-)
>>
>
>Actually, I baby the heck out of trucks and SUVs as I know they don't handle
>well. In contrast, I drive cars like I HATE them. Maybe I should start
>driving my 2003 4.0L 4X4 Ranger like it is a sports car, and see if the
>mileage improves? :) -Dave
>
Maybe.
I often wonder why some people have far worse experience than others,
all the while claiming that they are doing everything right.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 16:28:41 GMT, "Dave C."
<spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote:
>> >
>> Different driving styles, I suppose.
>> Maybe you're one of those who drive SUVs as if they were sports cars?
>> :-)
>>
>
>Actually, I baby the heck out of trucks and SUVs as I know they don't handle
>well. In contrast, I drive cars like I HATE them. Maybe I should start
>driving my 2003 4.0L 4X4 Ranger like it is a sports car, and see if the
>mileage improves? :) -Dave
>
Maybe.
I often wonder why some people have far worse experience than others,
all the while claiming that they are doing everything right.
<spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote:
>> >
>> Different driving styles, I suppose.
>> Maybe you're one of those who drive SUVs as if they were sports cars?
>> :-)
>>
>
>Actually, I baby the heck out of trucks and SUVs as I know they don't handle
>well. In contrast, I drive cars like I HATE them. Maybe I should start
>driving my 2003 4.0L 4X4 Ranger like it is a sports car, and see if the
>mileage improves? :) -Dave
>
Maybe.
I often wonder why some people have far worse experience than others,
all the while claiming that they are doing everything right.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 16:28:41 GMT, "Dave C."
<spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote:
>> >
>> Different driving styles, I suppose.
>> Maybe you're one of those who drive SUVs as if they were sports cars?
>> :-)
>>
>
>Actually, I baby the heck out of trucks and SUVs as I know they don't handle
>well. In contrast, I drive cars like I HATE them. Maybe I should start
>driving my 2003 4.0L 4X4 Ranger like it is a sports car, and see if the
>mileage improves? :) -Dave
>
Maybe.
I often wonder why some people have far worse experience than others,
all the while claiming that they are doing everything right.
<spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote:
>> >
>> Different driving styles, I suppose.
>> Maybe you're one of those who drive SUVs as if they were sports cars?
>> :-)
>>
>
>Actually, I baby the heck out of trucks and SUVs as I know they don't handle
>well. In contrast, I drive cars like I HATE them. Maybe I should start
>driving my 2003 4.0L 4X4 Ranger like it is a sports car, and see if the
>mileage improves? :) -Dave
>
Maybe.
I often wonder why some people have far worse experience than others,
all the while claiming that they are doing everything right.
