On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 21:24:20 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net>
wrote:

>C. E. White wrote:
>
>>
>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>
>>
>>>An SUV performing the same unsafe maneuver is far more hazardous to
>>>surrounding traffic. Surely even you can see that?
>>
>>
>> No, I can't see it. This is the sort of drivel the anti-SUV crowd
routinely repeats.
>> Continulaly repeating an opinion does not make it a fact. PROVE IT!
>>
>> Ed
>>
>
>They're heavier and don't handle as well. The conclusion should be
obvious.

Another gross generalization. That's why folks call you on this kind
of drivel.

>I'm actually repressing the urge to launch into an Aunt Judy-esque
rant
>at this point.

You and Judy and Carl Taylor, and sundry other clueless folks share
the same trait actually.

This frightens me. Why are concepts so obvious to
>anyone with any grasp of physics or driving dynamics apparently so
>obscure to the general public?

When folks with a very good grasp of driving dynamics, car control,
and physics (not to mention the fact that they have tens of thousands
of miles in SUVs that don't fit into your strident little pidgeon
hole) know that your gross generalizations are silly, you should start
questioning your assumptions, lest you continue to be lumped in with
the clueless trolls.

>*bangs head on desk*

It's apparently not helping your thought proccesses in the least bit.

Try something different.

 

Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote:

> Every time I hear
> someone bitch that they spend $(something large) for a SUV because they
> wanted to be safe, I wonder why they didn't spend the same money for a
> car that would be safer.

Maybe because 'being safe' includes 4x4 capability for bad weather.

 

Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote:

> Every time I hear
> someone bitch that they spend $(something large) for a SUV because they
> wanted to be safe, I wonder why they didn't spend the same money for a
> car that would be safer.

Maybe because 'being safe' includes 4x4 capability for bad weather.

 

Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote:

> Every time I hear
> someone bitch that they spend $(something large) for a SUV because they
> wanted to be safe, I wonder why they didn't spend the same money for a
> car that would be safer.

Maybe because 'being safe' includes 4x4 capability for bad weather.

 

Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote:

> Remember the days when you could buy a wagon and expect to haul plywood
> and tow a trailer with it?

1. No 4x4 (a factor wherever it snows)
2. Those old beasts delivered around 12 mpg.

If you claim that point 2 is negated by modern technology, everything
I've seen with seriously higher gas mileage is front wheel drive and is
therefore worthless as a towing vehicle.

 

Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote:

> Remember the days when you could buy a wagon and expect to haul plywood
> and tow a trailer with it?

1. No 4x4 (a factor wherever it snows)
2. Those old beasts delivered around 12 mpg.

If you claim that point 2 is negated by modern technology, everything
I've seen with seriously higher gas mileage is front wheel drive and is
therefore worthless as a towing vehicle.

 

Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote:

> Remember the days when you could buy a wagon and expect to haul plywood
> and tow a trailer with it?

1. No 4x4 (a factor wherever it snows)
2. Those old beasts delivered around 12 mpg.

If you claim that point 2 is negated by modern technology, everything
I've seen with seriously higher gas mileage is front wheel drive and is
therefore worthless as a towing vehicle.

 

> >> I changed to an off road chip in my Jeep to improve the performance.
> >>It runs much better with the hot chip. I only use the stock chip when
> >>its time for emissions inspection.
> >>
> >
> >
> > What happens if you test w/ the hot chip? My 92 Ranger hasn't failed yet
and
> > I've had a chip in it since 97 or 98.
> >
> >
> >
> I have never tried that.
>

Couldn't hurt to try it once particularly if you get a free retest. I know
the one in my Ranger is kind of a pain in the buttocks to get to. I even put
a lower gear set in the rear end two years ago and it still passes w/ flying
colors. It even improved MPG which never made any sense to me. I figured it
would go the other way.

 

> >> I changed to an off road chip in my Jeep to improve the performance.
> >>It runs much better with the hot chip. I only use the stock chip when
> >>its time for emissions inspection.
> >>
> >
> >
> > What happens if you test w/ the hot chip? My 92 Ranger hasn't failed yet
and
> > I've had a chip in it since 97 or 98.
> >
> >
> >
> I have never tried that.
>

Couldn't hurt to try it once particularly if you get a free retest. I know
the one in my Ranger is kind of a pain in the buttocks to get to. I even put
a lower gear set in the rear end two years ago and it still passes w/ flying
colors. It even improved MPG which never made any sense to me. I figured it
would go the other way.

 

> >> I changed to an off road chip in my Jeep to improve the performance.
> >>It runs much better with the hot chip. I only use the stock chip when
> >>its time for emissions inspection.
> >>
> >
> >
> > What happens if you test w/ the hot chip? My 92 Ranger hasn't failed yet
and
> > I've had a chip in it since 97 or 98.
> >
> >
> >
> I have never tried that.
>

Couldn't hurt to try it once particularly if you get a free retest. I know
the one in my Ranger is kind of a pain in the buttocks to get to. I even put
a lower gear set in the rear end two years ago and it still passes w/ flying
colors. It even improved MPG which never made any sense to me. I figured it
would go the other way.