Pliablemoose
Lifer
- Oct 11, 1999
- 25,195
- 0
- 56
I'm just living in fear for all the SUV's with well worn suspension/brake/driveline components get handed down to Johnny Jr. for his first car, big, poor handling vehicles that are worn out with inexperieced drivers behind the wheel.
That being said, people (or pig fvckers) can buy whatever the hell they want...
That being said, people (or pig fvckers) can buy whatever the hell they want...
damnit, i just noticed that.
lets put m/s as m/s^2 giving you a deceleration speed of 1 second, and you still get the same force.
MIKE
alkemyst
No Lifer
- Feb 13, 2001
- 83,769
- 19
- 81
Most people don't know enough to argue any point properly. They end up attacking the person rather than the issue or bringing in non-related falacies and/or simply replying 'you are wrong' with 'because I just know you are' as the supporting evidence 
.
The thing I dislike about SUV's is so many have them that simply do not need them and they make it difficult for others to drive properly. 17 mpg / 26 mpg is what a mustang today gets (V8) the avalanche (which is not considered an SUV and is slightly more efficient) is 14 mpg / 18 mpg....a huge difference. However that is not the real problem even though beasts like the Excursion get 11-13mpg highway and down to 6 when towing or doing city driving.
The extra weight is more wearing on the roads, the larger tires a land fill problem....again these are not the highest reasons I dislike them.
The main problem I have is SUV and Large pickup drivers are usually poor drivers and think they have constant right of way. I have seen at least three accidents were SUV/Pickups have simply blown red lights and stop sign assuming traffic will stop for them, one guy my wife saw put his hand out to 'stop others' as he floored it....he didn't see the faster car in the further lane and it totally T-boned him...we stopped and explained what we saw, luckily no one seemed really hurt although the on coming car was totalled.
I have over heard at a few women talking about how they just drive where they want and other's need to stop one quote was "My navigator will squash them like a bug"
I made a scene sort of and the lady left the bookstore quickly after. Then you have the idiots that ride your bumper because they can see over you. I have had countless SUV's end up on the side of me during rush hour because they simply cannot stop in time....once I was bumped and the guy said it wasn't his fault his truck is larger and can't stop as quick. Cop thought otherwise though especially when he mentioned he wasn't even listening to his radio, but talking to his business partner on the 2 way . really smart though, on the phone and tailgating.
You also have those that think since they have 4wd they can simply cut through lawns and flowerbeds to cut corners at red lights....even 'rednecks' don't do this, it's always one of the $40-60k varieties. It's just BS, total property damage and it's like they have this 'do you know who I am?!?' personna.
Then you have those that insist on using compact spaces with a non-compact, parking diagonally across 2-3 front spaces, pulling up directly to someone's driver's side so they can get out on their own, and hauling a$$ through parking garages. I have called in at least 5 or 6 times when some idiot was packing out (full-sized long bed pickups usually) and nailed another car, they stop look at the damage and blaze away. I have been called twice after leaving notes on the hit cars windshield with the tag number and description of the vehicle. If I hit someone I am going to make sure I make it right, not leave some guy screwed on my mistake.
As far as pollution goes...lawn equipment and livestock are the worst offenders so whether or not SUV's or muscle cars or whatever motor vehicle it is, it's a moot point in the whole scheme of things in my opinion.
Now that all said, my father has a SUV...he needed one to tow his boat as pick up trucks are not allowed in his community. He tries to park it where it will fit, not where the closest spaces are and whenever possible he takes my mother's vehicle which is a small car and more downtown parking friendly.
Last but not least are those taking advantage of the tax loophole for large trucks if you are a business owner, I have heard someone bragging about how they don't even 'use' the business but there Hummer was 'free'....I looked into it and it's definitely doable if you have the income to support the writeoffs.
Å
.The thing I dislike about SUV's is so many have them that simply do not need them and they make it difficult for others to drive properly. 17 mpg / 26 mpg is what a mustang today gets (V8) the avalanche (which is not considered an SUV and is slightly more efficient) is 14 mpg / 18 mpg....a huge difference. However that is not the real problem even though beasts like the Excursion get 11-13mpg highway and down to 6 when towing or doing city driving.
The extra weight is more wearing on the roads, the larger tires a land fill problem....again these are not the highest reasons I dislike them.
The main problem I have is SUV and Large pickup drivers are usually poor drivers and think they have constant right of way. I have seen at least three accidents were SUV/Pickups have simply blown red lights and stop sign assuming traffic will stop for them, one guy my wife saw put his hand out to 'stop others' as he floored it....he didn't see the faster car in the further lane and it totally T-boned him...we stopped and explained what we saw, luckily no one seemed really hurt although the on coming car was totalled.
I have over heard at a few women talking about how they just drive where they want and other's need to stop one quote was "My navigator will squash them like a bug"
. really smart though, on the phone and tailgating.You also have those that think since they have 4wd they can simply cut through lawns and flowerbeds to cut corners at red lights....even 'rednecks' don't do this, it's always one of the $40-60k varieties. It's just BS, total property damage and it's like they have this 'do you know who I am?!?' personna.
Then you have those that insist on using compact spaces with a non-compact, parking diagonally across 2-3 front spaces, pulling up directly to someone's driver's side so they can get out on their own, and hauling a$$ through parking garages. I have called in at least 5 or 6 times when some idiot was packing out (full-sized long bed pickups usually) and nailed another car, they stop look at the damage and blaze away. I have been called twice after leaving notes on the hit cars windshield with the tag number and description of the vehicle. If I hit someone I am going to make sure I make it right, not leave some guy screwed on my mistake.
As far as pollution goes...lawn equipment and livestock are the worst offenders so whether or not SUV's or muscle cars or whatever motor vehicle it is, it's a moot point in the whole scheme of things in my opinion.
Now that all said, my father has a SUV...he needed one to tow his boat as pick up trucks are not allowed in his community. He tries to park it where it will fit, not where the closest spaces are and whenever possible he takes my mother's vehicle which is a small car and more downtown parking friendly.
Last but not least are those taking advantage of the tax loophole for large trucks if you are a business owner, I have heard someone bragging about how they don't even 'use' the business but there Hummer was 'free'....I looked into it and it's definitely doable if you have the income to support the writeoffs.
Å
I'll agree to your second statement (SUVs are far more abundant than the BMW 540i) but must question your first.
alkemyst
No Lifer
- Feb 13, 2001
- 83,769
- 19
- 81
Originally posted by: Apex
Free? His marginal tax rate is 100%? Man, it must suck to be him.
I am not sure on how the details of it work but as long as the vehicle weight is over X lbs (the hummer qualifies) it's considered commercial or something to that effect, it's technically not free but less than 1/2 priced and I am not sure if you can also write off parts on tax years 2 and beyond.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/104601_hummer17.shtml has more about it....I just redid a google search quick.
Å
Siddhartha
Lifer
- Oct 17, 1999
- 12,505
- 3
- 81
In a SUV bashing thread awhile back someone brought up the fact that a Ferrari got the same gas mileage as a SUV. The general consensus was that since most forum members liked Ferraris it was okay for it to get 10 mpg.
Oh yeah SUV are too big..... and well the SUV bashers just do not like them.
Oh yeah SUV are too big..... and well the SUV bashers just do not like them.
i never really bash suvs for gas milage . i mean i drive like a crack head, so my nissan altima probably get SUV like millage. and well i want a sports sedan eventually no matter how impractical the engine. so i guess people who drive small cars fast and waste gas since they are speeding should get a bashing too.
anyway, i have other reasons for not liking suvs mostly that their lights usually blind me, they brake like crap, and will probably kill me if the idiots driving them run into me. that and their fakeness. but that makes it a broad range of cars to bash. and they are really damn hard to see around.
like i dont like to bash suvs per se, but just the poeple who buy them who really believe they are safer, or automatically make them into mr. sportsman. its the same reason i love to bash celica gt drivers who think they are cool, ricers, and bmw 325i owners.
also i guess at least if in regular 50mph traffic a ferrari ran into me i probably would be less likely to die.
anyway, i have other reasons for not liking suvs mostly that their lights usually blind me, they brake like crap, and will probably kill me if the idiots driving them run into me. that and their fakeness. but that makes it a broad range of cars to bash. and they are really damn hard to see around.
like i dont like to bash suvs per se, but just the poeple who buy them who really believe they are safer, or automatically make them into mr. sportsman. its the same reason i love to bash celica gt drivers who think they are cool, ricers, and bmw 325i owners.
also i guess at least if in regular 50mph traffic a ferrari ran into me i probably would be less likely to die.
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
"...making decisions that put others at risk for what? vanity."
You're the one deciding to offset your own safety to save a few dollars in fuel. Of course, being responsible for your own decisions just doesn't set well with a certain party, does it?[/quote]
it has nothing to do with fuel. a mini van might even use as much fuel as some suvs. but for the majority of suv owners, it does the job and more, and without the risk of roll over injury/death to occupants, and disproportionate risk to other vehicles. choosing an suv in most cases is a case of vanity, irresponsibility, and reckless disregard for others. theres a reason you have to have a drivers license and follow the rules of the road, driving isn't a right. you share the road with others, it is a privilige.
"...choosing an suv in most cases is a case of vanity, irresponsibility, and reckless disregard for others..."
You DON'T KNOW that for fact, but I DO KNOW for fact why I would opt for an SUV:
You DON'T KNOW that for fact, but I DO KNOW for fact why I would opt for an SUV:
- Occupent safety. Much safer than most econoboxes. A major concern when so many drivers of ALL types of vehicles have a reckless disregard for others...
- Sturdy, body on frame construction, with easier and cheaper to repair, RWD configuration.
- Elbow room, leg room, headroom...
alkemyst
No Lifer
- Feb 13, 2001
- 83,769
- 19
- 81
Well as far as occupant safety it's hit or miss, most SUV's don't have to follow the same crash testing. I think it was the F-150 that would chop off it's driver's legs in front impacts.....
The reckless disregard for others is prevailent in SUV/Large truck purchasing, many buy them on the assumption that 1) if they hit someone they will not be harmed 2) they can drive however they want (power trip) and other's will HAVE to adjust. It's totally different with a sports car. With a sports car the only risk you will factor in is if you go way over the speed limits, and it's been proven it's most unsafe older 4 door passenger cars doing that on average.
Repairs being cheaper and easier is very subjective...it really depends on what two vehicles you are comparing.
As far a room you could argue RV's have way more room also, but do you want to drive a house or are you trying to get from A to B?
Å
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
your kidding right?
the fact is suvs are disproportionatly dangerous to other vehicles in accidents. they are also dangerous to their own occupants in accidents. SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVES EXIST!! for those not bent on towing boats around, minivans are well known to be safer for occupants and others and for their given size, have more interior space to boot. the vast majority of people could more then get by with a socially responsibly vehicle choice like a mini van, the only reason not to is vanity and reckless disregard for others.
don't even try comparing suvs to sports cars. the only point where they compare is in fuel economy, but even then its not truely comparable since suvs only have to meet truck emissions standards. the suvs poor fuel economy only adds insult to injury. a sports cars impact on others in accidents is no more severe then with a regular car, they don't have high risk for roll overs which crush and kill their occupants and others, they don't have higher mismatched bumpers and centers of gravity, they do not have the height and mass to roll over others. vanity perhaps, but irresponsible in regards to others? no. their mere existence unlike suvs does not increase the risk for all drivers on the road.
lets put it another way. for those who do not need towing or off road capability, an suv is immoral. anyone who drives one without just cause has no right to speak of the sanctity of life, ever.
In what state are you talking about? in the 2002 Z06 they were actually able to tone downt he CAT's because they got it running so clean. Thats part of the 405 vs the 385 ratings.
And the Vette gets the same EPA MPG wether it's A4 or M6.
I have the same friggin engine basically to boot and my emissions were awesome, not to mention I have a blower ontop that spits out many more hydro's.
yup, SUVs are necessary...I see em' towing boats and trailers to work everyday during my commute. They are also usefull for offroading at the local Walmart parking lot.
"your kidding right?"
NO! The FACT is, you DON'T KNOW the reasons why others buy the vehicles they do, and I DO KNOW EXACTLY why I'd buy such a vehicle.
"the fact is suvs are disproportionatly dangerous to other vehicles in accidents."
That's the law of physics. You have the choice to buy a safer vehicle, too.
they are also dangerous to their own occupants in accidents.
Any nitwit who doesn't wear a seatbelt, deserves what they get.
SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVES EXIST!!
9 times out of 10, that 'alternative' is going to be FWD. FVCK THAT!
"for those not bent on towing boats around, minivans are well known to be safer for occupants and others and for their given size, have more interior space to boot. the vast majority of people could more then get by with a socially responsibly vehicle choice like a mini van, the only reason not to is vanity and reckless disregard for others.
Fvck that FWD, BS. I sure as hell don't want it, and I don't blame others for casting it off either.
don't even try comparing suvs to sports cars. the only point where they compare is in fuel economy,
...and vanity, and NOT being used for their intended purpose (which would be raced on a track, in the case of a sports car), and disregard for others, when they're raced on public roads...
but even then its not truely comparable since suvs only have to meet truck emissions standards. the suvs poor fuel economy only adds insult to injury. a sports cars impact on others in accidents is no more severe then with a regular car, they don't have high risk for roll overs which crush and kill their occupants and others, they don't have higher mismatched bumpers and centers of gravity, they do not have the height and mass to roll over others. vanity perhaps, but irresponsible in regards to others? no. their mere existence unlike suvs does not increase the risk for all drivers on the road.
For ALL the reason's I'd buy an SUV, a sports car would have as little desirability as a minivan, but for other reasons.
lets put it another way. for those who do not need towing or off road capability, an suv is immoral. anyone who drives one without just cause has no right to speak of the sanctity of life, ever.
Blame the CAFE laws for putting yourself at risk. The sanctity of my family's lives is paramount. If you value gas mileage, or preserving resources over your family's safety, that's YOUR business, and NO concern of mine.
CAFE carnage: Death by fuel economy standards
NO! The FACT is, you DON'T KNOW the reasons why others buy the vehicles they do, and I DO KNOW EXACTLY why I'd buy such a vehicle.
"the fact is suvs are disproportionatly dangerous to other vehicles in accidents."
That's the law of physics. You have the choice to buy a safer vehicle, too.
they are also dangerous to their own occupants in accidents.
Any nitwit who doesn't wear a seatbelt, deserves what they get.
SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVES EXIST!!
9 times out of 10, that 'alternative' is going to be FWD. FVCK THAT!
"for those not bent on towing boats around, minivans are well known to be safer for occupants and others and for their given size, have more interior space to boot. the vast majority of people could more then get by with a socially responsibly vehicle choice like a mini van, the only reason not to is vanity and reckless disregard for others.
Fvck that FWD, BS. I sure as hell don't want it, and I don't blame others for casting it off either.
don't even try comparing suvs to sports cars. the only point where they compare is in fuel economy,
...and vanity, and NOT being used for their intended purpose (which would be raced on a track, in the case of a sports car), and disregard for others, when they're raced on public roads...
but even then its not truely comparable since suvs only have to meet truck emissions standards. the suvs poor fuel economy only adds insult to injury. a sports cars impact on others in accidents is no more severe then with a regular car, they don't have high risk for roll overs which crush and kill their occupants and others, they don't have higher mismatched bumpers and centers of gravity, they do not have the height and mass to roll over others. vanity perhaps, but irresponsible in regards to others? no. their mere existence unlike suvs does not increase the risk for all drivers on the road.
For ALL the reason's I'd buy an SUV, a sports car would have as little desirability as a minivan, but for other reasons.
lets put it another way. for those who do not need towing or off road capability, an suv is immoral. anyone who drives one without just cause has no right to speak of the sanctity of life, ever.
Blame the CAFE laws for putting yourself at risk. The sanctity of my family's lives is paramount. If you value gas mileage, or preserving resources over your family's safety, that's YOUR business, and NO concern of mine.
CAFE carnage: Death by fuel economy standards
- The National Academy of Sciences and The Brookings Institution have each individually found that CAFE standards result in traffic fatalities. New research from the Competitive Enterprise Institute estimates that CAFE was responsible for 2,500 to 4,400 deaths nationwide in 2000, and that 27 to 47 of those deaths occurred in Oregon. Raising the standard to 40 mpg, as some in Congress want, would kill an estimated 1,100 additional Americans every year, 12 of which would be in Oregon.
More Americans are now buying SUVs and light trucks for safety reasons, particularly in rural areas where travel is more extensive, at higher speeds, and on less safe roads. If passenger cars are subject to stricter CAFE standards, SUVs will become even more popular. Instead of reducing our choices further, Congress should let each of us make responsible decisions about our use of energy and the safety of our families.
- The CAFE program was established by Congress in 1975. Current CAFE standards require motor vehicle manufacturers' fleets of cars to average 27.5 miles per gallon of gasoline and their fleets of light trucks (which include minivans and SUVs) to average 20.7 miles per gallon.1 The only affordable way for automakers to meet these standards is to reduce the mass and weight of their vehicles.2
This reduction has had deadly consequences. According to a study by the National Research Council (NRC), reductions in vehicle mass and weight necessary to meet CAFE standards increase the risk of death or serious injury in crashes. The NRC study found that vehicle downsizing and downweighting resulted in between 1,300 and 2,600 deaths and between 13,000 and 26,000 serious injuries in 1993 alone.3 A USA Today report, using data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, estimated that 46,000 people - nearly as many Americans as lost their lives in the Vietnam War - have died since 1975 as a result of the vehicle downsizing and downweighting due to CAFE standards.4
- The evidence clearly shows that smaller cars have significant disadvantages in crashes. They have less space to absorb crash forces. The less the car absorbs, the more the people inside the vehicle must absorb. Consequently, the weight and size reductions resulting from the CAFE standards are linked with the 46,000 deaths through 1998 mentioned above, as well as thousands of injuries. It is time that policymakers stop defending the failed CAFE program and start valuing human lives by repealing the standards.
- The Dec. 13 news story about the Department of Transportation's proposal to raise fuel economy standards omitted a major point: Downsizing vehicles to meet corporate average fuel economy, or CAFE, standards reduces their crashworthiness.
According to a 2001 National Academy of Sciences report, CAFE-induced downsizing contributes to 1,300 to 2,600 vehicle deaths a year. Any move to make CAFE standards even more stringent probably would raise this death toll.
Advocates of higher CAFE standards for sport utility vehicles argue that this would reduce the hazard that SUVs pose in collisions with cars. The evidence for this is far from clear, because assessing the overall safety effects of reducing one vehicle's mass in a multi-car collision is complex. But in single-vehicle accidents, small SUVs are much less safe than large ones. A higher CAFE standard for SUVs would encourage sales of small SUVs.
The Transportation Department skirts this issue in its proposal, but that shouldn't be surprising. A decade ago the Competitive Enterprise Institute sued the department, arguing that it had illegally ignored CAFE standards' lethal effects. A federal court agreed, finding that the department's approach was based on "lame claims," "statistical legerdemain" and "bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo." Now the department is doing it again. Even regulatory history, it seems, repeats itself.
- To improve fuel economy, auto makers primarily reduce the size and power of vehicles. Unfortunately, this downsizing has tragic consequences (See Figure). As far back as 1989, consumer advocate Ralph Nader admitted that "larger cars are safer - there is more bulk to protect the occupant." Numerous studies have proved this point. For example:
Researchers at Harvard University and the Brookings Institution found that, on average, for every 100 pounds shaved off new cars to meet CAFE standards, between 440 and 780 additional people were killed in auto accidents - or a total of 2,200 to 3,900 lives lost per model year. [See the figure.]
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) data indicate that 322 additional deaths per year occur as a direct result of reducing just 100 pounds from already downsized small cars, with half of the deaths attributed to small car collisions with light trucks/sport utility vehicles.
Using data from the NHTSA and the Insurance Institute for Traffic Safety, USA Today calculated that size and weight reductions of passenger vehicles undertaken to meet current CAFE standards had resulted in more than 46,000 deaths.
Since the laws of physics will not change, requiring all vehicles to be smaller increases everyone's overall risk of death or injury in auto accidents. Insurance data bear this out; occupants of small cars do worse than passengers of larger sedans, minivans or sport utility vehicles (SUVs) in every kind of accident.
Legendary
Diamond Member
- Jan 22, 2002
- 7,019
- 1
- 0
I love passing SUVs in my Civic Hyrid - it makes me laugh. And, in my experience, more than 50% of SUV drivers I pass, who have been going 40 in a 40 in the right lane, will speed up when they see my little Civic passing them. Some would say that's because maybe they perceived a different speed of the flow of traffic (me) but I say it's ego. But hey, I could be wrong. At least you can see SUVs a mile away and can prepare accordingly.
Its amazing how ignorant some of you SUV bashers are.
I'll bet most you don't have families and probably wouldn't understand the necessity of something large like an SUV. And since when did it become illegal to drive a vehicle with only one passenger?
If you looked out my window right now (in NYC), you might notice it snowing. It snowed 4" here yesterday. Again, show me how many minivans are out there with AWD? Toyota Sienna... maybe but it just came out. Chrysler T&C..yeah right!
You want to b!tch about poor mileage, then motion for a ban on all cars with over 4 cylinders and above 2 liters. I'm sure if somebody here does enough research, they'll find some thread with you drooling over the nice M3 with 16/24 MPG.
I'll bet most you don't have families and probably wouldn't understand the necessity of something large like an SUV. And since when did it become illegal to drive a vehicle with only one passenger?
If you looked out my window right now (in NYC), you might notice it snowing. It snowed 4" here yesterday. Again, show me how many minivans are out there with AWD? Toyota Sienna... maybe but it just came out. Chrysler T&C..yeah right!
You want to b!tch about poor mileage, then motion for a ban on all cars with over 4 cylinders and above 2 liters. I'm sure if somebody here does enough research, they'll find some thread with you drooling over the nice M3 with 16/24 MPG.
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
the fact is we do. companies know their customers, and they know their customers buy suvs on false assumptions of safety, and because they are jerks. corporations are not stupid, these are their own findings.
once again, ignoring what i said about minivans and responsibility. the laws of physics keep a minivan from rolling over to boot. they aren't light, and they still don't put others at excessive risk as suvs do. the f*ck everyone else attitude you exhibit is wonderful. your free to do what you want in this country until it affects others.
grasping at straws? did i speak of seatbelts? in roll overs you get crunched, regardless of seatbelts. and it has nothing to do with the point that the main reason why suvs are bought is the lie of safety.
vain and a jerk
vain and a jerk once again. buy a mustang if you care so much about rwd, it atleast isn't dangerous to others. its a piss poor reason for anything. i really hope your not a pro lifer, since you seem to put more preference into which wheels drive your car then others lives.
if driven recklessly, like how suv drivers drive more recklessly because of their assumed power. but thats not the point. the suv even driven normally is an excessive risk, a sportscar is simply a car.
as for cafe standards, this has nothing to do with cafe standards. cafe standards have nothing to do with raising the center of gravity of vehicles. the simple fact is the minivan might use as much gas as some suvs, but even so, is far safer for their own occupants and other vehicles. the suv is simple designed to be a socially irresponsible vehicle.
"The H2 is a gas guzzler. Because it has a gross vehicle weight rating over 8500 lbs, the US government does not require it to meet federal fuel efficiency regulations. Hummer isn't even required to publish its fuel economy (owners indicate that they get around 10 mpg for normal use). So while our brothers and sisters are off in the Middle East risking their lives to secure America's fossil fuel future, H2 drivers are pissing away our "spoils of victory" during each trip to the grocery store."
www.fuh2.com
"Mustang GT
EPA estimated mpg:
17 city / 25 highway"
"f150
EPA estimated mpg:
15 city / 19 highway"
if you dont think 2 mpg city and 6 highway are going to make a difference...
my car gets 29/32
that is about double an f150 or your dads avalanche.. your dad is driving for two.. i hope he is in construction or something where he really actually needs that vehicle.
Also there already are hybrid SUV and trucks out there I think the durango makes 25mpg.. there is are is going to be an explorer hybrid.. why not get those?
www.fuh2.com
"Mustang GT
EPA estimated mpg:
17 city / 25 highway"
"f150
EPA estimated mpg:
15 city / 19 highway"
if you dont think 2 mpg city and 6 highway are going to make a difference...
my car gets 29/32
that is about double an f150 or your dads avalanche.. your dad is driving for two.. i hope he is in construction or something where he really actually needs that vehicle.
Also there already are hybrid SUV and trucks out there I think the durango makes 25mpg.. there is are is going to be an explorer hybrid.. why not get those?
You do know that were heading towards a oil depression right? And that it wont last forever? And that its going to be all hell in America when we run out.. Right now it is 70$ but with the way gas prices are looking itll soon be 100$. It costs me 20 to fill my tank and it lasts well over 300 miles. It is okay when we do hit another oil shortage there wont be any SUVs on the road.. last time they rationed gasoline people couldnt drive much anymore with SUVs itll be doubly so.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter