PDA

View Full Version : Environmentalists take aim at GM's civilian version of US military Humvee


eyelikeart
Jul 29, 2003, 02:57 PM
So who around here has a problem with the huge SUV's on the road?

www.hummerdinger.com

I don't want to start a debate, but I've been against this thing since before the H2. I simply see no reason at all to have something this obnoxious & wasteful on the road.

news article found here (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030728/sc_afp/us_environment_gm_030728234750)

Mr. Anderson
Jul 29, 2003, 03:02 PM
The original Hummer borrowed heavily from the HMMV (military version) and had a bit of class or coolness about it. The H2 is a far cry from that military vehicle and is ugly to boot. I don't like them at all and I think they shouldn't have tried to make it better and stuck with the original.

D

MacManDan
Jul 29, 2003, 03:37 PM
Personally, I really dont like those Hummers. They're a disgrace to American roads. I don't care much if they pollute like hogs, but they are needlessly HUGE. Everyone I know to wants to own one .. but why? To scare other people on the road? I don't get scared .. I laugh. I agree with eye and Mr. Anderson .. they're ugly and wasteful (a waste of space, materials, etc). I think it would look a lot better if it was about 50% smaller and had some curves instead of its uncreative sharp corners :rolleyes:.

Some SUVs have a purpose .. for those large families who take lots of trips. That's justifiable, IMHO .. but what's the point of this tank? Those same people that I know that want one would never take it off-roading .. they want to keep it nice and clean etc etc. But that's what it was designed for .. to haul a bunch of military guys across rough terrain .. but why is it useful on the nice smooth pavement of American roads? :rolleyes: :confused:

MacFan25
Jul 29, 2003, 03:37 PM
Heh... I don't really have a problem with the Hummers. I think the H1 looks nice. But, I do think Hummerdinger's graph is pretty funny. :D

iJon
Jul 29, 2003, 03:37 PM
all i know is that those h2's are selling like hotcakes. ive seen so many around my town. even my friend in school just got one from his parents for his first car. i dont like them though, they are to big. although they would be fun to take slick rock climbing in moab , but thats what my dads wrangler is for.

iJon

idea_hamster
Jul 29, 2003, 03:38 PM
The problem with the SUV is not the form factor of the vehicle, per se. It's that regulators refuse to call it what it is: a truck.

Truck lane.
Truck tolls.
Truck restrictions.

They're trucks. Treat them like trucks and things would be much better.

Oh, and as someone who spent a fair portion of 3 years, 9 months and 21 days living in a Humvee, I can't imagine owning one as a civilian. I get the creeps seeing them on the road.

jayscheuerle
Jul 29, 2003, 03:51 PM
SUVs (especially Hummers) are right up there with pit-bulls– extensions of manhood for the under-endowed. If you can't be a man, wear a prop.

Guns are nice for this too.

- j

tazo
Jul 29, 2003, 04:01 PM
Now I am neither for nor against these massive vehicles, but it really makes you think, what kind of *problems* do these guys have buying em....

medea
Jul 29, 2003, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by eyelikeart
So who around here has a problem with the huge SUV's on the road?

www.hummerdinger.com

I don't want to start a debate, but I've been against this thing since before the H2. I simply see no reason at all to have something this obnoxious & wasteful on the road.

news article found here (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030728/sc_afp/us_environment_gm_030728234750)
Did you catch Adbusters ad in the current issue where they crossed out the H and replaced it with B as well as smogged out the moon in the H2 ads?
I agree, these things are horrendous and such a waste: a waste of space, a waste of materials, a waste of gas, a waste of money....
I've decided that I'm not even going to get a new Mini Cooper next year, instead my fiancee and I will opt for the new Toyota Prius. It was a tough decision but the right one.

Macpoops
Jul 29, 2003, 04:15 PM
ok the H1 were useful and cool. They basicly were the military HMMV with a cushy civilian interior. The H2s are a joke. They can't off-road they aren't even based on the same design as the original Hummers. The only thing they have that is near the original is the body styling. They are built on the same chassis as a suburban. They are simply made so some richie and have the biggest SUV on the road. It couldn't handle 5 minutes of serious off-roading. Hell 95% of SUVs couldn't handle it.
Jeep Wranglers and the original Hummers have alot in common. Both designed for the same military purpose then brought to the consumer market much later.

jxyama
Jul 29, 2003, 04:16 PM
completely off topic BUT:

tazo-

man, your 'tar looks just like iJon's. it's confusing...

a case of an identity theft at MR? i hear it's the fastest growing crime in the States, but i didn't know it would come to MR too! :D

eyelikeart
Jul 29, 2003, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by medea
Did you catch Adbusters ad in the current issue where they crossed out the H and replaced it with B as well as smogged out the moon in the H2 ads?


no! I didn't see this...I'd like to though...

seems like a great concept to kick it on the H2 though... ;)

tazo
Jul 29, 2003, 05:42 PM
Originally posted by jxyama
completely off topic BUT:

tazo-

man, your 'tar looks just like iJon's. it's confusing...

a case of an identity theft at MR? i hear it's the fastest growing crime in the States, but i didn't know it would come to MR too! :D


my avatar is completely diff...anyone with atleast one eye can tell that...

besides i think it looks tight.

mcrain
Jul 29, 2003, 06:05 PM
I liked the original Hummer b/c it had a true tough pedigree. It could go places other SUVs couldn't go. For someone who lives in the middle of nowhere and does a lot of work out of their truck offroad, then it was a great choice despite the terrible gas milage. Unfortunately, GM saw that people liked the status of the Hummer, but thought it drove too roughly and was too wide, so they took a suburban and made it look like a Hummer. For the people who originally bought the H1, the new H2 is a joke. As useless for their purposes as a Suburban.

I can't really complain too much about the gas milage. My car is a gas hog too.

(edit) By the way, your tar does look very similar to iJon's tar, and it is confusing.

iJon
Jul 29, 2003, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by mcrain
(edit) By the way, your tar does look very similar to iJon's tar, and it is confusing.
thank god im not the only one who thought that. its been driving me crazy just because that was the only way i could scroll through threads and see me. but i really cant stop him so oh well.

iJon

wdlove
Jul 29, 2003, 06:39 PM
Originally posted by iJon
thank god im not the only one who thought that. its been driving me crazy just because that was the only way i could scroll through threads and see me. but i really cant stop him so oh well.

iJon

I also hope tazo will go back to the Avatar that he had prior. I'm like you I recognize people by there Avatar. I like yours and I also liked his.

According to Powers the H2 has the worst record for problems. I personally could not afford the price tag or the gas that it needs. As of now this is still a free country, if they can afford the car. Cadillac makes a SUV that is just as obnoxious!

johnnowak
Jul 29, 2003, 07:03 PM
Would I ever own one? No.

But I don't think you should "laugh" at people who own an H2. It's a very nice vehicle inside, and I personally think it looks very attractive.

Yes its big, but -so what-. Honestly.. so what. It's not like having a big vehicle in front of you slows you down any or takes up too much space in parking lots. It makes no difference in all practicality.

The gas issue isn't that big of a deal either.. its no worse than most pickups.

Besides, some people actually do have a valid reason to own an SUV.

I personally drive a Saab.

Also.. yes Tazo.. that icon is silly.

jayscheuerle
Jul 29, 2003, 07:29 PM
Originally posted by johnnowak
It's not like having a big vehicle in front of you slows you down any or takes up too much space in parking lots. It makes no difference in all practicality.


Actually, these do slow me down and make me apprehensive, as do any large vehicle that blocks my view because I now have to rely on them to be keeping a proper distance from cars in front of them. Vehicles that block your view take away precious fractions of seconds and foresight.

Then you have people like me who don't like driving behind these behemoths, so they go out and get one themselves so that they can see again.

And so on and so on...

BrandonRP0123
Jul 29, 2003, 08:11 PM
The H2 is in all reality GM's answer to the Ford Excursion (although doing very well compared to the Ford, which is in it's last model year). The both of them (GM and Ford) make a good truck, and its only now (although 10+ years have gone by) that they realize that the Japanese automakers are squeezing them out of the car market. The Excursion and H2 get 10MPG respectively. The first year Excursion has a top speed of 87MPH. That's a good thing, I suppose, as I'd hate to see that behemoth do triple digit speeds.

It's been reported (Car and Driver, Motortrend) that over the next 5 years, each of the Detroit 3 will be spending billions on their car lines - where it needs to be.

The H2? The Excursion? Think of them as the 3500 (or 350) version(s) of the parent company's truck enclosed with another set of seats or better yet, take their current full sized vans, and add 4x4 and all of the features that should have gone into their vans years ago)

The comments about the manhood? Think of it as the car companies playing whos bigger with each other. GM for years has had the Suburban, and Ford's topper was the Excursion. GM answered that with the H2. Porsche recently made for sale their SUV - the Cayenne - which, in its turbo form (including $90,000+ sticker price) has a 450HP turbo V8 in it - which also gets 10MPG. Let us not forget the Toyota Land Cruiser/Lexus LX470 - which also gets a whopping 11MPG, along with the previous (1997-2002) Ford Expedition/Lincoln Navigator with the 5.4L Triton V8. Another 11MPG.

The second latest fad (and actually it's quite decent) is the car/SUV crossover vehicles - for example the Infiniti FX45 and Nissan Murano - or the Pontiac Vibe/Toyota matrix. The SUVs of yester-year are too big for the metropolitan American, thus sporty mini station wagons (Mazda Protege 5, Audi A4 avant, Toyota Matrix/Pontiac Vibe, Ford Focus ZX5, etc) are where they're trying to offer some of the features of an ``SUV'' in a car-like form.

Some of the SUVs out there, however, are tall cars, let's face it. The Honda CRV, for example - with real-time 4 wheel drive. Since when have you seen someone take one of those camping? The same for the Toyota RAV4. Both of them (at least the previous models) are civics/camrys with a stretched roof and bigger wheels.

We want efficient, functional automobiles and they just don't seem to understand that. I want a vehicle that I can take camping that doesn't cost $60 in gas each way, and at the same time one that I can park on the street in San Francisco. I guess that's just too much to ask for.

johnnowak
Jul 29, 2003, 08:12 PM
Originally posted by jayscheuerle
Actually, these do slow me down and make me apprehensive, as do any large vehicle that blocks my view because I now have to rely on them to be keeping a proper distance from cars in front of them. Vehicles that block your view take away precious fractions of seconds and foresight.

Then you have people like me who don't like driving behind these behemoths, so they go out and get one themselves so that they can see again.

And so on and so on...

But if you're keeping a proper distance behind them it shouldn't matter anyway. I certainly don't mind driving behind one.. even if he dead-stops by smacking into the car in front of him I have enough room to stop too.

I'd be a lot more worried about having one behind me than in front of me... but I drive a safe car anyway...

MrMacMan
Jul 29, 2003, 08:55 PM
I *really* hate the H2.

And by 'really' I mean, they are opening a Hummer Dealership close to my house and I believe I have slowed them down several times.

I brought to their attention that the dealship itself (being rebuilt) was too big for the lot they owned and that they ignored several other building codes.

I led a 20 person boycott of them building these monstrosities and when they open I expect to have even greater support.

They are gas gulping machines, only Triumphed by machines which aren't mass produced, such as the 'Enzo'.

Only the Enzo the Super Car, that even if the smallest push on the gas makes the car zoom to speeds of 80 MPH.

Yes, I hate the H2.

Sun Baked
Jul 29, 2003, 09:07 PM
Buyers praise Lexus and Toyota, boo Hummer
Mercedes-Benz conspicously absent from top awards (http://www.imakenews.com/autospies/e_article000149617.cfm)

Buyers praise Lexus and Toyota, boo H2

Highlights from the USA Today article:

Japanese and German auto manufacturers still dominate a leading measure of quality, while U.S. automakers are improving but still below the industry average.

Among individual brands, General Motors' popular Hummer scored dead last in J.D. Power and Associates' 2003 Initial Quality Survey. Buyers of the giant sport-utility vehicle apparently were surprised by its gas-guzzling ways.

The survey is based on buyers' reports of problems during the first 90 days of ownership...

...Among brands, GM's Cadillac and Buick finished in the top five. But Hummer, the hot-selling big SUV inspired by the military Humvee and built off the Chevrolet Tahoe platform, scored 225 problems per 100 vehicles.

Fuel economy and wind noise were tops among customer complaints, said Don Dees, Chrysler president of quality. The use of cell phones has made consumers demand "living-room quiet" in their vehicles, he said.Like people didn't know about the poor fuel economy of SUVs before they bought them.

Ford who made a big deal about improving fuel economy has been actually making it worse. ;)

tazo
Jul 29, 2003, 09:41 PM
as soon as i get an apology from macfan25 for stealing my avatar, although now it is changed, i will change it back...

Frohickey
Jul 29, 2003, 10:53 PM
Originally posted by jayscheuerle
SUVs (especially Hummers) are right up there with pit-bulls– extensions of manhood for the under-endowed. If you can't be a man, wear a prop.

Guns are nice for this too.

- j

Guns... large vehicles with large engines... computers with sleek styling from computer companies named after fruit...

Whatever floats your boat.

Some people like the utility large vehicles give. And until society degenerates into a totalitarian state, I would gladly enjoy the choice of being able to buy whatever product I want, using the money that I make.

Why should you care what type of vehicle a person drives? Are you a tyrant?

Dros
Jul 30, 2003, 12:06 AM
Originally posted by Frohickey
Some people like the utility large vehicles give. And until society degenerates into a totalitarian state, I would gladly enjoy the choice of being able to buy whatever product I want, using the money that I make.

Why should you care what type of vehicle a person drives? Are you a tyrant?

One reason to care is if that person's choice costs you money. SUVs are regulated as trucks, under regulations from a time when 'trucks' were something farmers drove, and so don't need to have the same emissions as cars. Result? A dirtier environment that I have to contribute to cleaning up. Of course, people shouldn't be forced to drive the cleanest vehicle, but why not ask them to shoulder the cost of their choice?

Likewise, road wear and tear and insurance rates are subsidized by actual cars. Making car owners pay for the benefit of others sounds tyrannical to me.

johnnowak
Jul 30, 2003, 12:17 AM
Originally posted by MrMacman
I *really* hate the H2.

And by 'really' I mean, they are opening a Hummer Dealership close to my house and I believe I have slowed them down several times.

I brought to their attention that the dealship itself (being rebuilt) was too big for the lot they owned and that they ignored several other building codes.

I led a 20 person boycott of them building these monstrosities and when they open I expect to have even greater support.

They are gas gulping machines, only Triumphed by machines which aren't mass produced, such as the 'Enzo'.

Only the Enzo the Super Car, that even if the smallest push on the gas makes the car zoom to speeds of 80 MPH.

Yes, I hate the H2.

No offense but.. can you even drive yet?

Cars are as much an emotional thing as they are practical for many people, myself included.

When I was 15, I felt the same way you did. How stupid.. waste of gas.. pollution.. etc.

You honestly though should wait till you take an S-curve at 70 in a random european stealth sedan (or hatchback in my case) before saying what people should and shouldn't buy.

vniow
Jul 30, 2003, 12:21 AM
Originally posted by tazo
as soon as i get an apology from macfan25 for stealing my avatar, although now it is changed, i will change it back...

http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?s=&postid=251202

iGav
Jul 30, 2003, 06:35 AM
I actually quite like the civie-humvee... :eek:

That said, it's overkill for the road, they should have made it from composite and aluminium to keep the weight down and stuck a TDI engine in it for added economy and low rpm torque!! In it's current form it's simply over engineered, abit like the latest Range Rover...

scem0
Jul 30, 2003, 07:12 AM
Seems like the relatively small amount of Hummers should not be the environmentalist's main concern.

SUVs hurt the environment more.

I will show this to my mom anyways though, who is a environmentalist.:o;)

scem0

Mr. Anderson
Jul 30, 2003, 07:54 AM
Originally posted by johnnowak
No offense but.. can you even drive yet?

hahaha thanks for that :D

scem0 - there is always going to be some vehicle with the *worst* emissions/gas mileage. This one will most likely be targeted for those reasons alone - so if it isn't the H2 it will be something else.

And there are more on the list ;)

D

jayscheuerle
Jul 30, 2003, 07:58 AM
Originally posted by Frohickey
Why should you care what type of vehicle a person drives? Are you a tyrant?

Far from it. These large vehicles instill a sense of power and recklessness in the people who drive them. They take up too much parking space on my street. They pollute the environment excessively. Their mass and height is a threat to average size cars in a collision.

It's all weiner-show. Especially for the women.

Ultility? For what? The average mini-van has twice the cargo room as an SUV. All SUVs have are height and a masculine appearance.

Drive what you want, but be prepared to be judged on the choices you make.

johnnowak
Jul 30, 2003, 08:54 AM
Originally posted by scem0
Seems like the relatively small amount of Hummers should not be the environmentalist's main concern.

SUVs hurt the environment more.

scem0

.. So what's a Hummer then?

And don't you mean their small amount should make them not a concern, not their small about shouldn't BE their concern?

jayscheuerle
Jul 30, 2003, 08:59 AM
Originally posted by johnnowak
.. So what's a Hummer then?


Don't they teach sex-ed these days?

Kids...

iJon
Jul 30, 2003, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by jayscheuerle
Far from it. These large vehicles instill a sense of power and recklessness in the people who drive them. They take up too much parking space on my street. They pollute the environment excessively. Their mass and height is a threat to average size cars in a collision.

It's all weiner-show. Especially for the women.

Ultility? For what? The average mini-van has twice the cargo room as an SUV. All SUVs have are height and a masculine appearance.

Drive what you want, but be prepared to be judged on the choices you make.
i can bet you that a mini van doesnt have as much space as my family's suburban. plus minivans are ugly, but that has nothing to do with the topic. personally i like driving the suburban. its the 2500 version so its jackedup way off the ground in stock condition. i can see everything on the road, its fast, i can go forever with out filling it up and it can fit all my friends into the car. some people hate suv's and thing they should be banned off the road, but it will never happen, because no one listens to those people and when i have kids and have a suv i will no if anyone hits me chances are much greater that my children wil be alright.

iJon

johnnowak
Jul 30, 2003, 10:11 AM
Originally posted by jayscheuerle
Don't they teach sex-ed these days?

Kids...

Touché. ;-)

wdlove
Jul 30, 2003, 10:38 AM
It's the American spirit to always want bigger and better. That is the way it has always been, and so it will always be!

Dros
Jul 30, 2003, 10:40 AM
Originally posted by iJon
personally i like driving the suburban. its the 2500 version so its jackedup way off the ground in stock condition. i can see everything on the road, its fast, i can go forever with out filling it up and it can fit all my friends into the car. some people hate suv's and thing they should be banned off the road, but it will never happen, because no one listens to those people and when i have kids and have a suv i will no if anyone hits me chances are much greater that my children wil be alright.

iJon

If you really care about your kids, don't drive a jacked up Suburban. They are thought to be safer in that one instance (two cars colliding), but are actually very unsafe due to rollovers during and away from accidents. People confuse "demolish the other car" with "I'm safe". And because SUVs are called trucks, they don't need to meet other safety requirements of cars. So SUV does not equal safety. Of course, most people think, "I'm not a crazy driver... others will roll but not me", but of course, they are wrong. And please, remember to give a buck to a car driver once in a while since they are paying to keep your insurance rates low.

Copied material below:
SUVs are heavier and ride higher than regular cars. The high ride contributes to a propensity of SUVs to roll over in accidents. According to NHTSA, SUVs rollover in 37 percent of fatal crashes, compared to a 15 percent rollover rate for passenger cars._ Rollover crashes accounted for 53 percent of all SUV occupant deaths in single vehicle crashes in 1996. Only 19 percent of occupant fatalities in passenger cars occurred in similar crashes.

In examining deaths per million passengers, SUVs had nearly the same death rates in accidents as small cars, but substantially more fatalities than mid-sized or large cars.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has recently examined head restraint designs for cars and SUVs._ Proper head restraints can lower the severity of whiplash injuries in an accident._ In a May 1999 study, the Institute found only two models of SUVs - the Mitsubishi Montero and certain models of the Chevy Blazer - had head restraints that merited a "good" rating. Most were listed as "marginal" or "poor."

iJon
Jul 30, 2003, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by Dros
If you really care about your kids, don't drive a jacked up Suburban. They are thought to be safer in that one instance (two cars colliding), but are actually very unsafe due to rollovers during and away from accidents. People confuse "demolish the other car" with "I'm safe". And because SUVs are called trucks, they don't need to meet other safety requirements of cars. So SUV does not equal safety. Of course, most people think, "I'm not a crazy driver... others will roll but not me", but of course, they are wrong. And please, remember to give a buck to a car driver once in a while since they are paying to keep your insurance rates low.

Copied material below:
SUVs are heavier and ride higher than regular cars. The high ride contributes to a propensity of SUVs to roll over in accidents. According to NHTSA, SUVs rollover in 37 percent of fatal crashes, compared to a 15 percent rollover rate for passenger cars._ Rollover crashes accounted for 53 percent of all SUV occupant deaths in single vehicle crashes in 1996. Only 19 percent of occupant fatalities in passenger cars occurred in similar crashes.

In examining deaths per million passengers, SUVs had nearly the same death rates in accidents as small cars, but substantially more fatalities than mid-sized or large cars.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has recently examined head restraint designs for cars and SUVs._ Proper head restraints can lower the severity of whiplash injuries in an accident._ In a May 1999 study, the Institute found only two models of SUVs - the Mitsubishi Montero and certain models of the Chevy Blazer - had head restraints that merited a "good" rating. Most were listed as "marginal" or "poor."
ah you make a very good point, this is very true. i guess its just because ive never had and friends or know anyone who has had this problem with an suv, but it is very probable. but my favorite suv has been the bmw x5, which i may take interest when i get older, and is very safe. the suburban has been a good car because it can hold everything we need for the long trip and has proven itself useful overtime. i guess when i get older and get married i just wont let my wife drive the suv to keep the kids safe ;)

iJon

johnnowak
Jul 30, 2003, 12:42 PM
The suburban doesn't even have crumple zones. All the impact from that 6000 pound truck goes right through you. If you really want the best protection for your kids (as I'm sure you do) get a Volvo or Saab next time around.

iJon
Jul 30, 2003, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by johnnowak
The suburban doesn't even have crumple zones. All the impact from that 6000 pound truck goes right through you. If you really want the best protection for your kids (as I'm sure you do) get a Volvo or Saab next time around.
haha ok, but im 17 and i dont know why im even talking about car safety, i hardly know anything about cars and should probably shut up now. hopefully i wont have kids soon and have to worry about it, haha.

iJon

jayscheuerle
Jul 30, 2003, 02:42 PM
It's interesting that those defending the right to drive these monsters are too young to remember the energy crisis during the mid-70s. Before then, the average Cadillac Eldorado or Ford Country Squire probably weighed close to what all these plastic-filled SUVs do today.

Ah, the good old days of jumping from the back seat to the rear of the wagon while moving, avoiding the hot-metal bolts that held the front seatbelts to the car-frame, lap belts, giant bench seats, 8 cylinders and 5' hoods. How the hell'd we ever survive childhood?

Frohickey
Jul 30, 2003, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by Dros
One reason to care is if that person's choice costs you money. SUVs are regulated as trucks, under regulations from a time when 'trucks' were something farmers drove, and so don't need to have the same emissions as cars. Result? A dirtier environment that I have to contribute to cleaning up. Of course, people shouldn't be forced to drive the cleanest vehicle, but why not ask them to shoulder the cost of their choice?

Likewise, road wear and tear and insurance rates are subsidized by actual cars. Making car owners pay for the benefit of others sounds tyrannical to me.

Gasoline taxes are used for road construction and maintenance. These taxes might also be used for environmental clean-up. Profits from gasoline sales could go into more R&D to formulate cleaner fuels. So, the way I see it, the higher fuel costs paid by SUV owners means they are already shouldering the cost of their choice.

If the environmentalists want to make a real impact on pollution, they should clamp down on the people driving 10-20 year old cars, and make them buy newer cars with better emission control. But you don't see that happening because drivers of older cars are more likely to be from the lower income scales. Can't be seen as against poor people who drive these old jaloppies hauling their 6 family members to separate jobs driving more miles than the rich guy with the newer H2 does to go to the office.

Similar thing when animal rights activists pour paint on rich ladies wearing fur coats. I'll respect them when they go to a Hells Angels block party and do the same thing to the ones wearing leather jackets.

jayscheuerle
Jul 30, 2003, 02:59 PM
Originally posted by Frohickey
If the environmentalists want to make a real impact on pollution, they should clamp down on the people driving 10-20 year old cars, and make them buy newer cars with better emission control.

Do you really think a Lincoln Navigator or H2 has better emissions than an '83 Volkswagon Rabbit? Remember, this must be considered with the variable of mpg as well. Pointing the finger at others in no way absolves other guilty parties, it just adds to the size of the offending groups.

- j

Dros
Jul 30, 2003, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by Frohickey
Gasoline taxes are used for road construction and maintenance. These taxes might also be used for environmental clean-up. Profits from gasoline sales could go into more R&D to formulate cleaner fuels. So, the way I see it, the higher fuel costs paid by SUV owners means they are already shouldering the cost of their choice.


That's a reasonable argument, if you believe SUVs contribute to the general cost as the same rate by which they guzzle gas compared to cars. A typical SUV gas mileage is half of a car, so they pay twice the amount of a car owner towards upkeep via gas taxes. Studies I've seen show that road damage goes up as the square of the axle weight, so SUV road damage costs are 6 times that of a car. So if you really want to shoulder the cost of your choice, ask for an extra tax by car weight. This makes those freaky environmentalists driving electric vehicles pay their fair share as well.

One reason why I don't like SUVs is that these giant corporations lobby to make them under rules for farm trucks of 30 years ago, then sell them with the highest margins of any vehicle despite the inferior worksmanship. I just don't like getting shafted!

Frohickey
Jul 30, 2003, 09:08 PM
Originally posted by Dros
So if you really want to shoulder the cost of your choice, ask for an extra tax by car weight. This makes those freaky environmentalists driving electric vehicles pay their fair share as well.

One reason why I don't like SUVs is that these giant corporations lobby to make them under rules for farm trucks of 30 years ago, then sell them with the highest margins of any vehicle despite the inferior worksmanship. I just don't like getting shafted!

So, how does government recoup their costs for freight trucks, vehicle license fees, all of those stickers that you see on tractor trailers. Same with SUVs, they get commercial license plates which costs more than passenger vehicles.

Passenger vehicles used for businesses such as taxis and busses cost more too. Thats how its done now.

If you have government hip-deep in regulation of the car industry, why are you surprised that you have giant corporations lobbying to make these vehicles under some of these byzantine government car industry regulations? One is the response of the other. How about we get government out of the business of regulating the car industry?

As to high margins and inferior workmanship, seems that the customers of these vehicles think there is enough value in the vehicles to warrant the prices they pay for them. They must not think that the workmanship is inferior, or else they will not be buying them in such quantities that companies can charge higher margins on them.

The market can take care of itself. It doesn't need the meddlesome hand of government regulations. What government can do is make sure that fraud in the marketplace is punished according to the law. I haven't seen any H2 commercials saying it will increase your 'member' size. ;)

Dros
Jul 30, 2003, 10:49 PM
Originally posted by Frohickey
So, how does government recoup their costs for freight trucks, vehicle license fees, all of those stickers that you see on tractor trailers. Same with SUVs, they get commercial license plates which costs more than passenger vehicles.

If you have government hip-deep in regulation of the car industry, why are you surprised that you have giant corporations lobbying to make these vehicles under some of these byzantine government car industry regulations? One is the response of the other. How about we get government out of the business of regulating the car industry?

As to high margins and inferior workmanship, seems that the customers of these vehicles think there is enough value in the vehicles to warrant the prices they pay for them. They must not think that the workmanship is inferior, or else they will not be buying them in such quantities that companies can charge higher margins on them.

The market can take care of itself. It doesn't need the meddlesome hand of government regulations. What government can do is make sure that fraud in the marketplace is punished according to the law. I haven't seen any H2 commercials saying it will increase your 'member' size. ;)

The trucking industry is even more heavily subsidized than SUV owners. Commercial license fees help, but are just a fraction of the true cost.

I'd be for reducing regulations if people were willing to shoulder actual costs. The market is efficient, certainly, so let people make choices based on cost rather than propping up certain modes with subsidies. I agree, calling them trucks is needless government intervention. I'm fine with not having any safety regulations if people can pay for that choice. Don't want to wear a motorcycle helmet? Fine, just don't come looking to me to pay when you smear your head across the road. Want to buy a vehicle that creates congestion and wears down roads. Pay a true fee and go to town!

As to people buying SUVs despite the high margins... most of recent economic theory is about how people make irrational choices, i.e. are suckers. I'm not saying SUVs don't have value and that some people may not need or want them, it is just if they create higher insurance claims, make them pay, if they pollute, make them pay, if they cause more road damage, make them pay. Then let the "efficient market" have its way.

pseudobrit
Jul 30, 2003, 11:34 PM
I pay heavier road tax than gasoline engine drivers.

I have a TDI that gets 50 mpg and I'm punished by having to pay higher taxes per gallon because the gov't expects me to be filling a road-destroying 18 wheeler. At least I don't have a lawn mower. It would be really crappy to pay road tax for mowing your grass.

Oh -- and my reward for having such a thrifty green car? I fill up once a month.

MrMacMan
Jul 31, 2003, 01:04 AM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
I pay heavier road tax than gasoline engine drivers.

I have a TDI that gets 50 mpg and I'm punished by having to pay higher taxes per gallon because the gov't expects me to be filling a road-destroying 18 wheeler. At least I don't have a lawn mower. It would be really crappy to pay road tax for mowing your grass.

Oh -- and my reward for having such a thrifty green car? I fill up once a month.

Yeah seriously.

They should have clean diesel laws so we can bring over the cars from Europe that get nice MPG but are forced to use diesel...

Comeon, with Ford Backtracking in MPG: (Ford Promised to be __% more fuel efficent by 2010 but this year they were LESS Fuel efficent in all of their models)

We need the hybrid, cleaner less polluting cars to come out on the market!

pseudobrit
Jul 31, 2003, 01:55 AM
Shame, too; the Focus TDCi is supposed to be a blast to drive.

Matter of fact, most diesels are more fun to drive than gasoline cars. They've a lot more grunt in the low end and their torque is massive.

iJon
Jul 31, 2003, 09:29 AM
Originally posted by MrMacman
Yeah seriously.

They should have clean diesel laws so we can bring over the cars from Europe that get nice MPG but are forced to use diesel...

Comeon, with Ford Backtracking in MPG: (Ford Promised to be __% more fuel efficent by 2010 but this year they were LESS Fuel efficent in all of their models)

We need the hybrid, cleaner less polluting cars to come out on the market!
they hybrid is such an awesome concept. those things get great MPG. only thing i dont like about the insight is that its fugly. but then there is the hybrid civic. it is nice but the problem for me would be that it is too slow. after having an acura legend for my first car its been great. i told my mom for next car this christmas its gotta be equal as fast or faster. i wonder if the hybrid engine is compatible with a fast car, or if you have to sacrifice that engine for speed.

iJon

jayscheuerle
Jul 31, 2003, 09:38 AM
Originally posted by iJon
they hybrid is such an awesome concept. those things get great MPG. only thing i dont like about the insight is that its fugly. but then there is the hybrid civic. it is nice but the problem for me would be that it is too slow. after having an acura legend for my first car its been great. i told my mom for next car this christmas its gotta be equal as fast or faster. i wonder if the hybrid engine is compatible with a fast car, or if you have to sacrifice that engine for speed.

iJon

You are absolutely iNsane iJon!

17 yrs. old and jonesing for your second car after the first being an Acura Legend that wasn't fast enough? And wanting to go faster?

No wonder insurance rates are so high!

At least I hope you're wearing your seatbelt! :p

iJon
Jul 31, 2003, 09:56 AM
Originally posted by jayscheuerle
You are absolutely iNsane iJon!

17 yrs. old and jonesing for your second car after the first being an Acura Legend that wasn't fast enough? And wanting to go faster?

No wonder insurance rates are so high!

At least I hope you're wearing your seatbelt! :p
hey now, i never asked for a new car. my mom said the legend is reaching its limit, so she said we will sell it and get a new one this christmas. personally i love my legend, i drive it more than my mom's z3 just because its faster and has a bose stero in it. and yes i always wear my seat belt, i never go in a car without it. my best friend got a bmw 3 series for his first car, its a blast to drive in, so im not that bad :D

iJon

QCassidy352
Jul 31, 2003, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by iJon
i can bet you that a mini van doesnt have as much space as my family's suburban. plus minivans are ugly, but that has nothing to do with the topic. personally i like driving the suburban. its the 2500 version so its jackedup way off the ground in stock condition. i can see everything on the road, its fast, i can go forever with out filling it up and it can fit all my friends into the car. some people hate suv's and thing they should be banned off the road, but it will never happen, because no one listens to those people and when i have kids and have a suv i will no if anyone hits me chances are much greater that my children wil be alright.

iJon

Oh good, a regular SUV wasn't bad enough - you have a jacked up SUV. :rolleyes:
How about this for a slogan: "For when you aren't yet doing enough to endanger the drivers around you."

I am all for free choice on any issue where other people are not being put at risk, but SUVs should be banned because they are dangerous to others as follows:
1) their headlights shine directly in to the eyes (or mirrors, if going the same direction) of drivers of normal cars, even when not on high beams. It's absolutly blinding.
2) in a crash, drivers of smaller cars will be killed.
3) other drivers cannot see over or around an SUV without being an excessive distance away. And sometimes keeping such extreme distance is just not possible. (If you say otherwise, you clearly don't drive in the real world.)
4) when an SUV is hit from the side, it has a high chance of rolling over, often resulting in paralysis of the occupants. (tho I do believe that people should be able to risk their own lives if they want, but most SUV owners don't even know about the increased risk of paralysis.)

ijon, exactly how fast do you drive?? There are hardly any commerical cars available that can't hit 100 mph. Do you need to go faster than that??

iJon
Jul 31, 2003, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by QCassidy352
Oh good, a regular SUV wasn't bad enough - you have a jacked up SUV. :rolleyes:
How about this for a slogan: "For when you aren't yet doing enough to endanger the drivers around you."

I am all for free choice on any issue where other people are not being put at risk, but SUVs should be banned because they are dangerous to others as follows:
1) their headlights shine directly in to the eyes (or mirrors, if going the same direction) of drivers of normal cars, even when not on high beams. It's absolutly blinding.
2) in a crash, drivers of smaller cars will be killed.
3) other drivers cannot see over or around an SUV without being an excessive distance away. And sometimes keeping such extreme distance is just not possible. (If you say otherwise, you clearly don't drive in the real world.)
4) when an SUV is hit from the side, it has a high chance of rolling over, often resulting in paralysis of the occupants. (tho I do believe that people should be able to risk their own lives if they want, but most SUV owners don't even know about the increased risk of paralysis.)

ijon, exactly how fast do you drive?? There are hardly any commerical cars available that can't hit 100 mph. Do you need to go faster than that??
well we didnt get the suburban for the hell of it. we bought it to pull a 36 foot long trailer, but after a bad experience we ended up just buying a motorhome. its not the top speed that i really want, becaus i hardly ever hit 100, only when im having fun on some open highways that i know the cops arent on. it is getting to a fast speed, acceleration is what i like. my legend is very speedy and gets up and goes. and about the lights, gmc has solved that problem, because yes the lights thing is annoying, but i have that problem with every car i drive :rolleyes:. if i am driving down the road and lights are in my mirrors and hitting my eyes, gmc's suburban mirrors turn the light to a light green, which doesnt stare you down, its very convienent and i thank them for it. you guys can hate me for what cars my family have and how fast i drive, but i honestly dont care what you people think of my families vehicles. this all reminds me of the stupid lady in my town who lived in a tree because they were gonna cut it down to build a kohl's. the lady was an idiot and the only reason she came down was because her husband decided to divorce her and she had to come down for the court date. in court they asked her why she was against cutting down the tree, she said because they make oxygen. the lawyer asked they dont have trees in the desert and there is oxygen, she shut her mouth from then on because she realized she was an idiot. i am not saying you guys are idiots, its just all this enviromental talk makes me think of that dumb lady and its a good laugh when i think about it.

iJon

Frohickey
Jul 31, 2003, 01:00 PM
I drive one of those econoboxes... most of the time. This was one of those 40+ MPG small cars when the hybrids were not even being thought of yet. My reward was lower fuel costs and less maintenance costs.

I also drive one of those larger SUVs. I do not appreciate it when these born-again environmentalists tell me that my SUV is wreaking the environment, or that I'm not paying my fair share of costs for driving the SUV. Where were these environmentalists at when the first Geo Metros and Honda Civics first rolled off the line?

As to the argument that SUVs cause more injury in a collision because the large vehicle protects its occupants more than the small vehicle does. Simple, don't hit another vehicle.

There was this great article from Design News magazine, about SUVs vs lighter cars (http://www.manufacturing.net/dn/index.asp?layout=article&stt=001&articleid=CA279116&pubdate=03%2F03%2F03). It explored the argument about SUVs causing injuries in smaller cars, and went through various scenarios to 'fix' the problem. The ending paragraph says it all.

This could clearly be carried on endlessly of course, but aside form the humor, there are serious issues here. It is abvious that the PF (performance function) of life should include numerous factors. Among those factors are personal freedom and responsibility. As we reflect on the willingness of our astronauts and military personnel to lay their lives on the line for the sake of higher causes, we realize that there are values more precious than safety. Freedom is almost always obtained at the expense of safety, and requires an assumption of personal responsibility. Responsibility for the consequences of our choises gives us dignity in spite of our imperfections.

jayscheuerle
Jul 31, 2003, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by Frohickey
As to the argument that SUVs cause more injury in a collision because the large vehicle protects its occupants more than the small vehicle does. Simple, don't hit another vehicle.


But how do you keep the mass-loaded, slow stopping, aggressor piloted vehicle from hitting you?

Your scenario would have everyone buying larger and larger vehicles in order to come out on top during a collision. Where would this stop? The scariest thought is that those who know they are bad drivers, those who've had multiple accidents will probably be among the first to use this excuse to move up a weight class in order to protect themselves or their families. It's the cautious driver zipping around town in his Prius who is going to get creamed by the dolt with the cell phone and coffee in her Expedition.

The crash-victor consciousness of which you speak allows for and almost dictates a more casual state of driving. One gets sloppy when they know they've got one up on the competition. SUV pilots tend to be horrendous drivers because they can be. Environmental concerns aside, that's the biggest reason why they're dangerous.

edesignuk
Jul 31, 2003, 01:37 PM
I like them, kinda, but given the environmental crisis that we are all a part of, I see no reason for such a ridiculous motor. A British motoring journalist recently reviewed them on a renowned car show called Top Gear here in the UK. At one point the stupid thing was doing 1MPH!!!!! That is just totally unnecessary.
America (I think, though not 100% sure so please don’t shoot me if I’m wrong) is the largest polluter in the world, such motors do not help I’m sure.

…but I’d still love an Aston Martin V8 Vantage Lemans (http://www.supercars.net/cars/2000@$Aston%20Martin@$V8%20Vantage%20Lemansg.html), no longer allowed to be made due to their crazy emissions…*Hint! Hint! Mr. Bush!*

edit: typo ;)

QCassidy352
Jul 31, 2003, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by iJon
well we didnt get the suburban for the hell of it. we bought it to pull a 36 foot long trailer, but after a bad experience we ended up just buying a motorhome. its not the top speed that i really want, becaus i hardly ever hit 100, only when im having fun on some open highways that i know the cops arent on. it is getting to a fast speed, acceleration is what i like. my legend is very speedy and gets up and goes. and about the lights, gmc has solved that problem, because yes the lights thing is annoying, but i have that problem with every car i drive :rolleyes:. if i am driving down the road and lights are in my mirrors and hitting my eyes, gmc's suburban mirrors turn the light to a light green, which doesnt stare you down, its very convienent and i thank them for it. you guys can hate me for what cars my family have and how fast i drive, but i honestly dont care what you people think of my families vehicles. this all reminds me of the stupid lady in my town who lived in a tree because they were gonna cut it down to build a kohl's. the lady was an idiot and the only reason she came down was because her husband decided to divorce her and she had to come down for the court date. in court they asked her why she was against cutting down the tree, she said because they make oxygen. the lawyer asked they dont have trees in the desert and there is oxygen, she shut her mouth from then on because she realized she was an idiot. i am not saying you guys are idiots, its just all this enviromental talk makes me think of that dumb lady and its a good laugh when i think about it.

iJon

um... so anyone who worries about the envirornment is an idiot? Ok. :rolleyes: (not that my argument oppossed SUVs on envirornmental grounds anyway...)

What are you talking about with the lights?? I don't see how any lights would shine in your eyes on a jacked up suburban; I'm saying that *your* lights would shine in other people's eyes because and SUV is so much higher.

As to the argument that SUVs cause more injury in a collision because the large vehicle protects its occupants more than the small vehicle does. Simple, don't hit another vehicle.

Motor vehicles are going to get in to accidents. The question is how much damage is done to the involved people when the accidents do occur.

iJon
Jul 31, 2003, 02:30 PM
Originally posted by QCassidy352
um... so anyone who worries about the envirornment is an idiot? Ok. :rolleyes: (not that my argument oppossed SUVs on envirornmental grounds anyway...)

What are you talking about with the lights?? I don't see how any lights would shine in your eyes on a jacked up suburban; I'm saying that *your* lights would shine in other people's eyes because and SUV is so much higher.



Motor vehicles are going to get in to accidents. The question is how much damage is done to the involved people when the accidents do occur.
no, not anyone here is an idiot, they lady in my city who became an owl for 2 weeks and had no point to back up her stupidity was an idiot, i dont know why i even talked about her, i just came to to my mind. at night when im driving on the bypass every car behind me, big or small hits my mirrors, well the suburban turns that light to a greenish tint so it is easy on the eyes and i dont have to move my head around to avoid the light, and that is why i love driving the suburban at night, its easier on my eyes.

iJon

MacAztec
Jul 31, 2003, 02:43 PM
SUVs kick ass. I really don't see why everyone has a problem with them. I DON'T like the SUVs that get really horrible gas milage, but I dont even think we should be using gas.

The government should have alloted enough money to the development of hydrogen fuel cells so that we can USE hydrogen cars. They are way more efficient, gas is cheaper, the cabin is safer, etc.


Currently, my family does not own any SUVs, just a minivan, BMW, ford taurus, and a ford mustang.

We used to have broncos, explorers, etc.

My dad decided its easier to drive through the grape fields in a lower car so u can see under the vine.

So, thats why we dont own an SUV. But they are still awesome vehicles, and I love 'em.

Dont complain about them using a lot of gas, complain to the government for not putting hydrogen fuel cars in the mainstream market. It would be so simple. Gas companies can just change their gas lines to hydrogen, and it works fine. I read all about it in Scientific American.

jayscheuerle
Jul 31, 2003, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by MacAztec

The government should have alloted enough money to the development of hydrogen fuel cells so that we can USE hydrogen cars. They are way more efficient, gas is cheaper, the cabin is safer, etc.

Dont complain about them using a lot of gas, complain to the government for not putting hydrogen fuel cars in the mainstream market. It would be so simple. Gas companies can just change their gas lines to hydrogen, and it works fine. I read all about it in Scientific American.

The problem with hydrogen is that though it's plentiful in the universe, free hydrogen is not plentiful here. Pretty much all of it has escaped our atmosphere. What we do have is plenty of hydrogen bound to oxygen in the form of water. Unfortunately, the amount of energy needed to extract this hydrogen from water is large. Hydrogen cars would be non-polluting, but the plants that produce the hydrogen would now be polluting more. We'd just be shifting the source of production from one place to another.

The technological breakthrough that we need to make hydrogen in a cheap and plentiful manner hasn't happened yet.

iJon
Jul 31, 2003, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by jayscheuerle
The problem with hydrogen is that though it's plentiful in the universe, free hydrogen is not plentiful here. Pretty much all of it has escaped our atmosphere. What we do have is plenty of hydrogen bound to oxygen in the form of water. Unfortunately, the amount of energy needed to extract this hydrogen from water is large. Hydrogen cars would be non-polluting, but the plants that produce the hydrogen would now be polluting more. We'd just be shifting the source of production from one place to another.

The technological breakthrough that we need to make hydrogen in a cheap and plentiful manner hasn't happened yet.
whats up with this new concept honda (i think its a concept). i saw it when i was acura pricing. apparently it runs of water vapor or fuel cells or something? www.honda.com

iJon

MacFan25
Jul 31, 2003, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by tazo
as soon as i get an apology from macfan25 for stealing my avatar, although now it is changed, i will change it back...
sorry tazo. You must be referring to the iMac 'tar I had. I saw that you had a similar avatar so I changed to the iTunes logo.

Anyway, getting back on topic, I think Ford is coming out with a hybrid version of one of their SUVs, the Escape. Very cool.

jayscheuerle
Jul 31, 2003, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by iJon
whats up with this new concept honda (i think its a concept). i saw it when i was acura pricing. apparently it runs of water vapor or fuel cells or something? www.honda.com

iJon

It still needs a big tank of hydrogen, which is expensive to extract (most likely from water). This Honda engine, then recombines the hydrogen with oxygen to turn it back to water, which is the only exhaust.

From the car owners point of view, it's extremely green and clean. The problem is that fossil fuels are probably being used to power the plants that extract the hydrogen from the water in the first place.

Regardless, it's still a good thing and such research helps everybody out in the end.

- j

Frohickey
Jul 31, 2003, 05:05 PM
jayscheuerle, I'm glad that some here have done some reading about the implications of moving to a hydrogen economy. The production of free hydrogen is what most people have NOT thought through, all they see is the low/no pollution when extracting the energy from free hydrogen, but not the pollution involved in making hydrogen to begin with.

Last I heard, environmentalists are also against genetically modified plants. Seems to me that the best thing would be to genetically modify some plants that produce free hydrogen from water and sunlight, then, you would grow these plants in large greenhouses where the hydrogen would be captured and bottled.

johnnowak
Aug 1, 2003, 09:13 AM
Exactly. Being against genetically modified food sources is just silly in my opinion. You get more food from the same area, and you can avoid having to move into areas you'd otherwise have to move into to continue to produce enough food.

Same thing if we stopped using pesticides to produce food... much more land would be needed.

Environments are often idealistic nuts who have no idea of how things actually work. They mean well, but often fail to realize that if they always had their way, things would actually be worse for the environment.

johnnowak
Aug 1, 2003, 09:16 AM
Of course.. now I realize that's not at all what you were saying.. heh.

Frohickey
Aug 1, 2003, 11:57 AM
I've met some rabid environmentalists that are very much against any land use, even for land that had been used for generations. Their idea of land conservation is to get humans out of the area permanently, its as if they believe humans are a disease and should be exterminated. They want population control, control over people's mode of transportation, control over people's dietary habits, control over people's use of private land. In essence, they are control freaks. Not anyone you want to have control of the government (monopoly on the legal use of force). (I said LEGAL, not MORAL use of force.)

Only saving grace is that they are also anti-war. So, they will not go for the wholesale slaughter of countries that do not subscribe to their beliefs. They are willing to fine you to death, or jail you for life though. :mad:

funkywhat2
Aug 2, 2003, 01:43 AM
Originally posted by jayscheuerle
SUVs (especially Hummers) are right up there with pit-bulls– extensions of manhood for the under-endowed. If you can't be a man, wear a prop.

Guns are nice for this too.

- j


Ahem...

Pardon me, but you seem not to see that most (i.e not the Hummer) SUVs can serve a purpose. For example: My family.

Two parents, five kids, dog. Car is out. The few wagons that will hold seven people that were in our price range (35-45K) had rear facing jumpseats in the back, causing mommy to eliminate them. So off Minivan shopping we (Mommy, Daddy, son) go. First to Ford. The Windstar looked good, so I get in. My seat is in the third row. Get in seat, adjust to sit comfortably and, *ouch* my head hits the plastic edging along the headliner. So I get out. Next, we go to Dodge. Same routine, same result. Honda - six month wait. Sorry, no go. Daddy avoids GM products like the plague, so no Chevy/Pontiac/Oldsmobile. Finally, Toyota. Get in Sienna. I fit. Mom gets in, dad gets in. They fit, they like it. Then comes the final test. Mom whips out the double stroller, and opens the hatch, inserts stroller, and slams hatch shut. A loud thud is heard. Not only does it not fit, but the stroller is deformed. So, as we head back into the dealership, a Jade metallic Toyota Sequoia Limited catches Mom's eye. We stroll over, and get in. I fit, with two or so inches of room in the back, the most I'd have delt with in all the autos tested. Mom gets in, dad gets in, they love it. Mom puts the now repaired stroller in the hatch, and closes it. The hatch closes, no banging heard. In fact, over three inches of clearence between stroller and door.

Needless to say, we bought that Sequoia. And we all fit. I'm now in the second row, my two school ages sisters in the third row, and two baby seats next to me in the second row. We've orad tripped at least six times in the thing, with a small carrier thing on the top. We could never have done that in a minivan.

pseudobrit
Aug 2, 2003, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by funkywhat2
Ahem...

Pardon me, but you seem not to see that most (i.e not the Hummer) SUVs can serve a purpose. For example: My family.

Two parents, five kids, dog. Car is out. The few wagons that will hold seven people that were in our price range (35-45K) had rear facing jumpseats in the back, causing mommy to eliminate them. So off Minivan shopping we (Mommy, Daddy, son) go. First to Ford. The Windstar looked good, so I get in. My seat is in the third row. Get in seat, adjust to sit comfortably and, *ouch* my head hits the plastic edging along the headliner. So I get out. Next, we go to Dodge. Same routine, same result. Honda - six month wait. Sorry, no go. Daddy avoids GM products like the plague, so no Chevy/Pontiac/Oldsmobile. Finally, Toyota. Get in Sienna. I fit. Mom gets in, dad gets in. They fit, they like it. Then comes the final test. Mom whips out the double stroller, and opens the hatch, inserts stroller, and slams hatch shut. A loud thud is heard. Not only does it not fit, but the stroller is deformed. So, as we head back into the dealership, a Jade metallic Toyota Sequoia Limited catches Mom's eye. We stroll over, and get in. I fit, with two or so inches of room in the back, the most I'd have delt with in all the autos tested. Mom gets in, dad gets in, they love it. Mom puts the now repaired stroller in the hatch, and closes it. The hatch closes, no banging heard. In fact, over three inches of clearence between stroller and door.

Needless to say, we bought that Sequoia. And we all fit. I'm now in the second row, my two school ages sisters in the third row, and two baby seats next to me in the second row. We've orad tripped at least six times in the thing, with a small carrier thing on the top. We could never have done that in a minivan.

What about the VW Eurovan?

Sun Baked
Aug 2, 2003, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
What about the VW Eurovan? Then there's also the Mercedes Sprinter turbodiesel van.

Not really advertised to the public but it's around.

Of course I can't see the site right now. :(

www.sprinter.com/echora/dcvan/sprinter

iJon
Aug 2, 2003, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
What about the VW Eurovan?
i guess when it comes down to it people like the looks of the car, but thats just me. when i look at the eurovan i think of the dodge cargo van getting ready to rob the bank. and im sure the toyota is much more luxorious than the eurovan, which matters to me but maybe not to others.

iJon

Durandal7
Aug 2, 2003, 05:15 PM
SUVs have their place, I do disapprove of their massive size. There should be some sort of size limit imposed on manufacturers so I don't have to pull my tiny car over to the side of the street to let the idiot in the Lincoln Navigator who doesn't feel like moving over a few feet by. Smog is a problem, though I find it incredibly arrogant to assume that humans are god's gift to the universe and can demolish something on the scale of a planet without trying.

What pisses me off the most is all the idiots around where I live with massive diesel pick-up trucks. I have no problem with carpenters, plumbers, contractors, etc. using them but I find it a strech that the obese guy who somehow keeps it sparkly clean, waxed and empty all the time really needs it. They are too loud and dirty to not be limited to professional use.

Frohickey
Aug 2, 2003, 08:15 PM
Originally posted by Durandal7
SUVs have their place, I do disapprove of their massive size. There should be some sort of size limit imposed on manufacturers so I don't have to pull my tiny car over to the side of the street to let the idiot in the Lincoln Navigator who doesn't feel like moving over a few feet by. Smog is a problem, though I find it incredibly arrogant to assume that humans are god's gift to the universe and can demolish something on the scale of a planet without trying.

What pisses me off the most is all the idiots around where I live with massive diesel pick-up trucks. I have no problem with carpenters, plumbers, contractors, etc. using them but I find it a strech that the obese guy who somehow keeps it sparkly clean, waxed and empty all the time really needs it. They are too loud and dirty to not be limited to professional use.

Someone should appoint you supreme leader, then maybe you can put these SUV drivers that you do not approve of into reeducation camps. Maybe if they do not behave, you can have them neutralized. (End_obvious_sarcasm)

I used to think just like you, that SUVs serve no purpose other than taking up room on the streets, room on the parking lots, and blocking your view of the street. Also, I have had my fair share of inconsiderate drivers, but these are not limited to SUVs, they are in sports cars, tiny econoboxes, luxury cars and even tractor trailers. But its the driver that is the issue, not the SUV.

funkywhat2
Aug 2, 2003, 09:31 PM
I should've mentioned the Eurovan, and even if the Sprinter was available at the time (Feb 2001) we wouldn't have bought it, due to the diesel(at least the one you mentioned, I didn't go to the site.) It's impossible to find in my area.

pseudobrit
Aug 2, 2003, 11:42 PM
Originally posted by funkywhat2
I should've mentioned the Eurovan, and even if the Sprinter was available at the time (Feb 2001) we wouldn't have bought it, due to the diesel(at least the one you mentioned, I didn't go to the site.) It's impossible to find in my area.

Wha? Diesel's available in 1/3 of all gas stations, and at every highway rest stop.

pseudobrit
Aug 2, 2003, 11:44 PM
Originally posted by Durandal7
What pisses me off the most is all the idiots around where I live with massive diesel pick-up trucks. I have no problem with carpenters, plumbers, contractors, etc. using them but I find it a strech that the obese guy who somehow keeps it sparkly clean, waxed and empty all the time really needs it. They are too loud and dirty to not be limited to professional use.

Those diesel pickups use less fuel and deliver better performance in a more reliable engine. And the fuel is what's dirty, not the engine. US sulfur standards are nowhere near the Euro ones.

Durandal7
Aug 3, 2003, 03:30 AM
Originally posted by Frohickey
Someone should appoint you supreme leader, then maybe you can put these SUV drivers that you do not approve of into reeducation camps. Maybe if they do not behave, you can have them neutralized. (End_obvious_sarcasm)


Actually I have no problem with SUVs aside from the massive size of the higher end models. The size of some of these trucks are getting to ridiculous proportions when compared to residential streets. The small to mid size models do not bother me a bit.


Those diesel pickups use less fuel and deliver better performance in a more reliable engine. And the fuel is what's dirty, not the engine. US sulfur standards are nowhere near the Euro ones.
[/B]
Absolutely right, the engines are incredibly efficient in them. This still leaves the problem of fuel pollution and noise pollution.

funkywhat2
Aug 3, 2003, 10:22 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
Wha? Diesel's available in 1/3 of all gas stations, and at every highway rest stop.


Exactly, the 1/3 that's nowhere near me! :rolleyes:

jayscheuerle
Aug 4, 2003, 08:32 AM
Originally posted by funkywhat2
Ahem...

Pardon me, but you seem not to see that most (i.e not the Hummer) SUVs can serve a purpose. For example: My family.

Two parents, five kids, dog...

Sure, they serve a purpose, but seldom is that purpose utilitarian. Most often they're status-oriented, intimidation machines. You're obviously an exception. Glad you like the vehicle, and in your case (with 5 kids!), no manhood extension is needed! :D

- j

Frohickey
Aug 4, 2003, 05:55 PM
Originally posted by Durandal7
Actually I have no problem with SUVs aside from the massive size of the higher end models. The size of some of these trucks are getting to ridiculous proportions when compared to residential streets. The small to mid size models do not bother me a bit.

Absolutely right, the engines are incredibly efficient in them. This still leaves the problem of fuel pollution and noise pollution.

Massive size aside, you just need to live with the fact that people have the choice and option to buy vehicles that they like and enjoy. If someone enjoys driving a RV (recreational vehicle) day-in and day-out, why should that matter?

Think of an SUV as a mini-RV. :D

Fuel pollution and noise pollution are not a constant for diesel engines. The clacking you hear is of the valve train, you could adjust those to be less noisy. Same with the fuel system, they can be adjusted as well.

What needs to be done is to change the stigma that diesel engines are dirty and noisy. That would require advertising effort. Same thing required to get more people to buy Macintoshes.

pseudobrit
Aug 4, 2003, 07:14 PM
Originally posted by Frohickey
Massive size aside, you just need to live with the fact that people have the choice and option to buy vehicles that they like and enjoy. If someone enjoys driving a RV (recreational vehicle) day-in and day-out, why should that matter?

Not true or I'd be able to buy and drive a surplus tank to work. If I like and enjoy that vehicle, why can't I use it to run errands?

The government has a right and a duty to protect us from other people's disregard for their fellow man.

Think of an SUV as a mini-RV. :D

I don't know anyone that would drive their RV to work, alone, everyday.

Sun Baked
Aug 4, 2003, 07:38 PM
The new Chrysler station wagon isn't selling well, not SUV-like enough.

Seems like the station wagon alternative to SUVs will sell just as well as hatchbacks until they are turned into mini SUVs.

Even though the wagons and hatchbacks have all the utility that SUV buyers look for, buyers still will turn their noses up at them.

Though the sport wagons and sporty hatchbacks seem to do a lot better.

---

Look's like www.sprinter.com is back up. Of course this is a real Mercedes utility/passenger van. With a motor built for the long haul.

http://www.sprinter.com/Main/Content/sprinter/01_Home/HO_pict_2.jpg

Frohickey
Aug 4, 2003, 11:42 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
The government has a right and a duty to protect us from other people's disregard for their fellow man.


Governments do not have rights!!! The only thing governments have are powers, which are granted to it by the people with the consent of the people.

Duty are what citizens have for their fellow citizens. Collectively, it would gather at the government.

Capn_Moho
Aug 5, 2003, 01:54 PM
Just give me a Mini Cooper. No H2-Really-Just-the-GM-Frame-But-Uglier or Hummer. I want 40 miles to the gallon in a reasonably priced vehicle tiny non-road hogging vehicle.

And yes, iJon, even though your friends drive BMWs, you're still a far cry from my (former) 1987 Honda Accord. The accord was replaced by my family's 1987 Ford Econoline. Thankfully, that was replaced by my current Specialized.

iJon
Aug 5, 2003, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by Capn_Moho
Just give me a Mini Cooper. No H2-Really-Just-the-GM-Frame-But-Uglier or Hummer. I want 40 miles to the gallon in a reasonably priced vehicle tiny non-road hogging vehicle.

And yes, iJon, even though your friends drive BMWs, you're still a far cry from my (former) 1987 Honda Accord. The accord was replaced by my family's 1987 Ford Econoline. Thankfully, that was replaced by my current Specialized.
ah yes, i wanteda mini cooper but my mom said if i ever got in a wreck with probably anything iwould be dead. i grew up in a financially stable family, and i appreciate whatever i get.

iJon

Capn_Moho
Aug 5, 2003, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by iJon
ah yes, i wanteda mini cooper but my mom said if i ever got in a wreck with probably anything iwould be dead.

You should show your mom the Mini Cooper safety ratings (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/NCAP/Cars/2474.html). 4 stars across the board isn't bad. It may be small, but it's designed well enough that it won't kill you in a collision. And it's actually pretty roomy inside. Personally, the only reason I would be concerned is that so many people get SUVs in an attempt to be "Oh, they're safer," without looking at things like rollovers...

On another note, trees do make oxygen. There is oxygen in the desert because the world is a biosphere. There wouldn't be oxygen in the desert without trees.

jayscheuerle
Aug 5, 2003, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by iJon
ah yes, i wanteda mini cooper but my mom said if i ever got in a wreck with probably anything iwould be dead.

- and most likely killed by someone driving an SUV who was less cautious on the road because they subconsciously figured that they can be more reckless and aggressive while piloting a more dominant vehicle.

Most small cars like Minis are pretty safe for their size. It's when they're involved with a vehicle that is figured to be a giant suit of armor for its occupants that they often come out worse off.

Since at 17 years old, you're most likely to be the cause of any accident you're involved with, your parents are providing you with more of an offensive weapon than defensive protection. You've remarked yourself how you like to drive fast...

The only one who makes out from a crash of two disparately sized vehicles is the mortician.

iJon
Aug 6, 2003, 12:09 AM
Originally posted by jayscheuerle
- and most likely killed by someone driving an SUV who was less cautious on the road because they subconsciously figured that they can be more reckless and aggressive while piloting a more dominant vehicle.

Most small cars like Minis are pretty safe for their size. It's when they're involved with a vehicle that is figured to be a giant suit of armor for its occupants that they often come out worse off.

Since at 17 years old, you're most likely to be the cause of any accident you're involved with, your parents are providing you with more of an offensive weapon than defensive protection. You've remarked yourself how you like to drive fast...

The only one who makes out from a crash of two disparately sized vehicles is the mortician.
your right, chances are i would be the cause of any accident. but about me driving fast, yes i do drive fast, but only on open highways that ive driven on many times before. i dont drive fast in the city or in resedential areas for the fear of getting pulled over and injuring someone. but i know i know, im already the worse guy on this page, i had an acura for a first car, i drive fast and my family owns a gigantic suburban and motorhome. oh well, cant make everyone happy.

iJon

iJon
Aug 6, 2003, 12:36 AM
Originally posted by Capn_Moho
You should show your mom the Mini Cooper safety ratings (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/NCAP/Cars/2474.html). 4 stars across the board isn't bad. It may be small, but it's designed well enough that it won't kill you in a collision. And it's actually pretty roomy inside. Personally, the only reason I would be concerned is that so many people get SUVs in an attempt to be "Oh, they're safer," without looking at things like rollovers...

On another note, trees do make oxygen. There is oxygen in the desert because the world is a biosphere. There wouldn't be oxygen in the desert without trees.
thanks ill have to show her that, but she really wants my next car to be japanese, we have had best luck with them. i know about the whole trees thing, but i just found it silly of her to sit in a tree because a couple were gonna be cut down for kohl's, its not like it was the tropical rain forest. plus in my area there are more trees than many years ago, and from looking out in back of my area we have more trees than probable all of south utah which i visit every year.

iJon

jayscheuerle
Aug 6, 2003, 08:07 AM
Originally posted by iJon
oh well, cant make everyone happy.

iJon

Nor should you try. ;)

iJon
Aug 6, 2003, 10:47 AM
Originally posted by jayscheuerle
Nor should you try. ;)
haha especially in a thread like this. too many opinions floating around.

iJon