Why are SUV's the only vehicles that get ripped on for gas guzzling?

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Doggiedog
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 sincerely hate to tell you you are the ignorant one here. I love when these soccer moms say they must have a Expedition/Navigator sized SUV because they have 2 kids and a dog. Everyone seems to forget the 50's-70's with 5 kids in a large station wagon and still room for the dog in the back. Families are getting smaller and the vehicles bigger.

The real irony is half these large SUVs have low tow ratings. Most cap out around 5000-7000lbs (if that).

Then you snow guys talk 4WD and in the same breath bash FWD....for most purposes FWD is superior for every day driving. RWD is only better really in racing type situations...of course then maintenance and repair costs get brought up, but seriously most cars today last a long time and have matching warranties.

No one is trying to say it's illegal to drive a 2.5-3 ton vehicle solo....likewise you are free to leave every faucet on in your home....neither is the smart choice.

It's your choice to choose, it's either the selfish approach to life or the sharing one.

Å

 

[LordMorpheus]

it isn't the gas consumption that pisses me off about SUV's, its their size (i can't see a damn thing when I'm behind one) and the dangers they create for other drivers (any lesser car gets hit by SUV is porked).

The gas consumption is just kinda icing on the proverbial cake.

I also don't like how they started putting those really bright headlights in them that are level with my head when I drive. No matter how well aimed, I always seem to get a blast of the full force burning to my retinas.

The other thing I ahte about SUVs is that they give the driver +3 asshole points, so he will cut in front of you, refuse to let you merge, take your turn at stoplights, and talk of his/her cell phone because they have a big car.

Yeah. And SUVs aren't the only vehicles ripped on for their gas guzzling. Any V8 gets that. Hell, most V6's do, too. I know people think my Sable is a guzzler, or at least high on the guzzler scale.

 

[VTrider]

Hey, some Americans need SUVs to drive their fat, dorito-eating asses over to the local Krispy Kreme....

Some SUV owners around here use them to haul their horse trailers or boats around, very practical esp. during mud season.

I've been working within the Resort industry in Vermont for the last 10 years. I see thousands of guests a year, most from NYC, New Jersey, Connecticut + other large urban population centers. 6 years ago I used to joke about how many minvans were always parked in the lots, understandable though - typical family w/2.3 kids, luggage, sports equipment, etc. Now most of the parking lots are filled w/SUVs - why do you think this is? Most don't have trailer-hitches, family sizes seem to be the same. Just an interesting observation - you make your own conclusions.

 

[Ornery]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

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 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.

Speak for yourself, Carnak.

That's the law of physics. You have the choice to buy a safer vehicle, too.

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.

Gonna get your congressman to sponsor a bill to make anything bigger than yours, against the law? There was nobody holding a gun to your head, telling you what vehicle to purchase. Now, after making your choice, you decide that everybody else should drive the same size vehicle as you. Well, isn't that special?

Any nitwit who doesn't wear a seatbelt, deserves what they get.

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.

Here's some straws for ya, Carnak:

• 
  ...most rollover deaths in SUVs occur when people are ejected from the vehicle...
  
  80% of the people killed in single-vehicle rollovers were not wearing their seatbelts. Occupants wearing seatbelts are 75% less likely to be killed in a rollover crash than occupants who are not wearing seatbelts.
  
  And 59 percent of those killed in SUV rollover accidents, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, likely would have survived had they been wearing seatbelts.
  
  Viewed in their totality, the facts indicate that SUVs are more than reasonably safe; indeed, when driven responsibly, their overall safety is demonstrably superior to that of the typical compact and mid-sized passenger car.
  
  Fact: If all of the people who died in Explorer rollovers had been wearing their seatbelts, we might not be having this conversation right now.
  
  About half of all SUV fatalities involve rollover, the company says. Because they were not wearing seatbelts, many of these victims were ejected from the vehicle?and were ten times as likely to be killed. "Occupants are best protected in SUV rollovers when they buckle up,"

9 times out of 10, that 'alternative' is going to be FWD. FVCK THAT!

vain and a jerk

WTF is vain about buying a sturdier configuration, JERK?

Fvck that FWD, BS. I sure as hell don't want it, and I don't blame others for casting it off either.

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.

It's a piss poor reason to want:

• coil over shocks, instead of expensive McPhearson struts?
• Cheap U-Joints instead of expensive CV Joints?
• Room to work on your engine, instead of being crammed in a tiny bay with the transmission?
• A timing chain instead of a belt?
• A vehicle that can be configured with a sturdy 4WD?

Those are all the reasons I'd want an SUV over a wimpy ass minivan... JERK!

...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...

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.

Whatever you say, Carnak.

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.

CAFE laws have caused all cars to be smaller, which is inherently less safe. Fortunately, we still have a choice of a vehicle or two, that we can live with. It's your choice...

 

[Doggiedog]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: Doggiedog
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 sincerely hate to tell you you are the ignorant one here. I love when these soccer moms say they must have a Expedition/Navigator sized SUV because they have 2 kids and a dog. Everyone seems to forget the 50's-70's with 5 kids in a large station wagon and still room for the dog in the back. Families are getting smaller and the vehicles bigger.

The real irony is half these large SUVs have low tow ratings. Most cap out around 5000-7000lbs (if that).

Then you snow guys talk 4WD and in the same breath bash FWD....for most purposes FWD is superior for every day driving. RWD is only better really in racing type situations...of course then maintenance and repair costs get brought up, but seriously most cars today last a long time and have matching warranties.

No one is trying to say it's illegal to drive a 2.5-3 ton vehicle solo....likewise you are free to leave every faucet on in your home....neither is the smart choice.

It's your choice to choose, it's either the selfish approach to life or the sharing one.

Å

You sound like you know it all. Let me ask, do you have a family? How often does it snow in Florida? Would you really like to go back to the 50-70s and have those station wagons?

I'll answer my questions for you.

Yes, I have an atomic family with 2 kids but it is very uncomfortable, even in a large vehicle, with 2 cars seats inside. Additionally, I typically have to transport more than 5 people (the in-laws) at a time.

Don't know about Florida but it's been snowing here the last 3 days. I live on a steep hill (no exageration). I fell on my ass yesterday and slid a few feet down just getting out of a cab. Inclement weather is typical in the Northeast.

My family had several of those wagons you are talking about. I'm from a large family (3 sisters) and hated those wagons. Sure they were big but they were also unreliable, uneconomical and sometimes outright dangerous. As a people mover, they may have fit the bill back then but times have changed. Wagons have gotten much smaller and the ones that claim to fit 7 passengers all have rear facing 3rd row seats. Have you ever seen what happens when a wagon gets rear ended with someone in the rear seat? They get thrown out the rear window. I don't know about you but I certainly would not want a wagon just for that reason alone.

Then you go off on a tangent talking about the virtues of FWD vs RWD. I don't see anyone on this thread bashing FWD or drag racing in a RWD SUV. Sure FWD is great for most uses. No argument here. But again there are times when AWD is necessary, especially here in the NE.

You have your opinions and I have mine but if you really think you know what people need and know each person's circumstances and situations and blindly paint them all as selfish and stupid, I don't know what to say. Perhaps you might have made a nice dictator in some communist country.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Doggiedog

You sound like you know it all. Let me ask, do you have a family? How often does it snow in Florida? Would you really like to go back to the 50-70s and have those station wagons?

I'll answer my questions for you.

Yes, I have an atomic family with 2 kids but it is very uncomfortable, even in a large vehicle, with 2 cars seats inside. Additionally, I typically have to transport more than 5 people (the in-laws) at a time.

Sure I'd go for a station wagon over any truck if people hauling was the necessity. No I do not have a family but I move equipment alot so I require for myself a vehicle with folding seats at least....sometimes I need to *borrow* a truck whether it's a rental or friend/family....as someone courteous I would not want to bestow my vehicle indulgance on the local mall/theatre as I take up more than my fair share of a 'compact' space. My father has a large SUV like I mentioned (to pull a 23-26 foot something Dusky), he takes my mother's vehicle when he can though.

Don't know about Florida but it's been snowing here the last 3 days. I live on a steep hill (no exageration). I fell on my ass yesterday and slid a few feet down just getting out of a cab. Inclement weather is typical in the Northeast.

so to me being higher up in an SUV would have caused a bigger fall...what was your point? Seriously a RWD? cab made it, but you will need a 4x4 huge SUV? They make full sized passenger cars now with AWD.

My family had several of those wagons you are talking about. I'm from a large family (3 sisters) and hated those wagons. Sure they were big but they were also unreliable, uneconomical and sometimes outright dangerous. As a people mover, they may have fit the bill back then but times have changed. Wagons have gotten much smaller and the ones that claim to fit 7 passengers all have rear facing 3rd row seats. Have you ever seen what happens when a wagon gets rear ended with someone in the rear seat? They get thrown out the rear window. I don't know about you but I certainly would not want a wagon just for that reason alone.

hate of a wagon is showing your vanity...which is what your argument is about in reality....however, most station wagons are a lot more safer than trucks/suvs. Trucks do not have to follow the same crash guidelines hence why you witness severely injured SUV occupants....in most accidents that are non-life threatening the size and weight of these bigger vehicles push these accidents into a new category of pain and anguish for the other vehicle. The sad part of this is statistically the SUV is 'at-fault'.

Then you go off on a tangent talking about the virtues of FWD vs RWD. I don't see anyone on this thread bashing FWD or drag racing in a RWD SUV. Sure FWD is great for most uses. No argument here. But again there are times when AWD is necessary, especially here in the NE.

perhaps for a select minority. Again seriously prior to AWD did people just not function and again AWD comes in car forms now.

You have your opinions and I have mine but if you really think you know what people need and know each person's circumstances and situations and blindly paint them all as selfish and stupid, I don't know what to say. Perhaps you might have made a nice dictator in some communist country.

dictator? I am the one providing evidence to a contrary, you are merely stating how a wagon is too ugly and those few times a year you are carting around in-laws you don't want anyone's elbows to rub (perhaps a vanity/luxury cross). Like I said there are people that need full-sized SUVs...a family of four is not one of those even if they have a dog and snow. Now anyone that lives in the mountaintops with steep grades and not 'plowed' is a special case. You had a cab provide you service, that is not a special case yet you tried to make it one. Perhaps you need to take a look in a mirror before you start calling names.

Å

 

[MikeMike]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: Doggiedog

You sound like you know it all. Let me ask, do you have a family? How often does it snow in Florida? Would you really like to go back to the 50-70s and have those station wagons?

I'll answer my questions for you.

Yes, I have an atomic family with 2 kids but it is very uncomfortable, even in a large vehicle, with 2 cars seats inside. Additionally, I typically have to transport more than 5 people (the in-laws) at a time.

Sure I'd go for a station wagon over any truck if people hauling was the necessity. No I do not have a family but I move equipment alot so I require for myself a vehicle with folding seats at least....sometimes I need to *borrow* a truck whether it's a rental or friend/family....as someone courteous I would not want to bestow my vehicle indulgance on the local mall/theatre as I take up more than my fair share of a 'compact' space. My father has a large SUV like I mentioned (to pull a 23-26 foot something Dusky), he takes my mother's vehicle when he can though.

Ok, this doesnt matter much, however, my father HATES it when ppl borrow his truck, he has always had a truck and ppl ALWAYS need to borrow it for some odd reason. If you know how to park correctly, most SUV's will fit in a normal space. We take my fathers avalanche as often as we can due to it being larger inside, more comfortable for the family, rather than my mothers Rav 4, or my 4dr Jimmy, we used to have a car, but the interior space of the avalanche is just so much bigger, and more roomy

Don't know about Florida but it's been snowing here the last 3 days. I live on a steep hill (no exageration). I fell on my ass yesterday and slid a few feet down just getting out of a cab. Inclement weather is typical in the Northeast.

so to me being higher up in an SUV would have caused a bigger fall...what was your point? Seriously a RWD? cab made it, but you will need a 4x4 huge SUV? They make full sized passenger cars now with AWD.

(i dont get his question, nor your answer)

My family had several of those wagons you are talking about. I'm from a large family (3 sisters) and hated those wagons. Sure they were big but they were also unreliable, uneconomical and sometimes outright dangerous. As a people mover, they may have fit the bill back then but times have changed. Wagons have gotten much smaller and the ones that claim to fit 7 passengers all have rear facing 3rd row seats. Have you ever seen what happens when a wagon gets rear ended with someone in the rear seat? They get thrown out the rear window. I don't know about you but I certainly would not want a wagon just for that reason alone.

hate of a wagon is showing your vanity...which is what your argument is about in reality....however, most station wagons are a lot more safer than trucks/suvs. Trucks do not have to follow the same crash guidelines hence why you witness severely injured SUV occupants....in most accidents that are non-life threatening the size and weight of these bigger vehicles push these accidents into a new category of pain and anguish for the other vehicle. The sad part of this is statistically the SUV is 'at-fault'.

ok. but, the crash tests are normally as effective at predicting safety, also, a LOT of roll over injuries are caused by passengers being retarded and not wearing seat belts

Then you go off on a tangent talking about the virtues of FWD vs RWD. I don't see anyone on this thread bashing FWD or drag racing in a RWD SUV. Sure FWD is great for most uses. No argument here. But again there are times when AWD is necessary, especially here in the NE.

perhaps for a select minority. Again seriously prior to AWD did people just not function and again AWD comes in car forms now.

no, people drove trucks w/ sand bags in the back. hell, my dad was gunna get 2wd truck just to save the money, but the truck came with 4wd. he hardly uses it, awd, fwd, rwf, 4wd, it doesnt matter, its how you know how to drive

You have your opinions and I have mine but if you really think you know what people need and know each person's circumstances and situations and blindly paint them all as selfish and stupid, I don't know what to say. Perhaps you might have made a nice dictator in some communist country.

[/quote]

dictator? I am the one providing evidence to a contrary, you are merely stating how a wagon is too ugly and those few times a year you are carting around in-laws you don't want anyone's elbows to rub (perhaps a vanity/luxury cross). Like I said there are people that need full-sized SUVs...a family of four is not one of those even if they have a dog and snow. Now anyone that lives in the mountaintops with steep grades and not 'plowed' is a special case. You had a cab provide you service, that is not a special case yet you tried to make it one. Perhaps you need to take a look in a mirror before you start calling names.

Å

4 member family, can choose wtf they want, there is no difference between an SUV that ppl seem to hate, and a car, o no, i cant see past the SUV because im following to closely. remember, YOU are resposible for your following distance, stay the FVCK back if you dont feel comfortable where you are. why do ppl need vehicles in general?? a nice quad person bike would work!!!

MIKE

 

[Doggiedog]

Where did I say I hate wagons? I said I hated those wagons because they were the biggest POS. I actually like wagons alot. I would LOVE to have an Audi S4 or S6 Avant. If you dig back far enough, you might even find a thread of mine inquiring about it. Unfortunately, wagons are just cars with a bigger trunk and really unsuitable for what some people need.

BTW, how do you know I take my in-laws around a couple times a year? You have ESP or something? I have 6 or 7 people in my SUV practically every week. Would it be better for me to take two cars instead?

Do you know how big child seats are length wise and depth wise? Well, I've got 2 of them in the back. Only a small person can sit in the third seat comfortably. Try doing that in a mid-sized car. Now how is it vain to want some more space instead of jabbing your elbows into a hard plastic seat?

How often does it snow in sunny Florida? Well, its going to snow ANOTHER 3-6" tonight in NYC. Considering there are about 10 million people in the region alone, I would not call us a minority. There is utility in places for SUVs.

so to me being higher up in an SUV would have caused a bigger fall...what was your point? Seriously a RWD? cab made it, but you will need a 4x4 huge SUV? They make full sized passenger cars now with AWD.

No. The cab (Lincoln Towncar) did not make it. He slipped all the way. When he finally reached my house, I basically had to jump out because he was sliding back down the hill. He had to floor it in reverse to gain enough momentum to make it up the hill again. And again, I had a big sedan. Regardless of whether or not it was RWD, with 2 child seats inside it was only a 4 passenger car. The 3rd space in the back was completely useless for a full sized adult and like I said, I need room for 7 people oftentimes.

perhaps for a select minority. Again seriously prior to AWD did people just not function and again AWD comes in car forms now.

No society advances. Technology advances. If its available and it makes things safer, I don't know how you can argue not wanting it unless it is not affordable. In case you didn't know, they didn't have ABS back then either. I wonder how people were able to stop their cars.

You had a cab provide you service, that is not a special case yet you tried to make it one.

I have no idea what you are trying to argue here.

Sure I'd go for a station wagon over any truck if people hauling was the necessity. No I do not have a family but I move equipment alot so I require for myself a vehicle with folding seats at least....sometimes I need to *borrow* a truck whether it's a rental or friend/family....as someone courteous I would not want to bestow my vehicle indulgance on the local mall/theatre as I take up more than my fair share of a 'compact' space. My father has a large SUV like I mentioned (to pull a 23-26 foot something Dusky), he takes my mother's vehicle when he can though.

Have you really listened to yourself? Go borrow someone else's car when you need something? You are asking alot to regularly impose yourself on others. To me, that's even more inconsiderate.

Just for your information, I'll tell you how inconsiderate I am. I don't like driving my SUV. I only use it on weekends. If I need to drive (I usually take public transportation), I'll drive my old sedan. When I need to haul the family, I'll drive the SUV. If I can get around using it, I will. You seem to portray SUVs as completely immoral and useless but you know there are alot of people out there that can't have specialized vehicles for each occasion. Why is it wrong to get something that fits peoples needs in one vehicle?

 

[alkemyst]

The last two posters have proven to be mental midgets, nothing more to really say when someone takes "I either borrow a truck from family/friend or rent one" and make it that I just take peoples trucks without them first extending the favor. Perhaps I live in a different socio-economic circle...but many of these 'trucks' are just that, extra vehicles....not primary ones.

The rest is not worth responding too...you can both go out selfishly and make up for your shortcomings in life with a vehicle oversized for the job and with the potential to kill others so you can just have some elbow room and 'look cool'. I have provided valid points against such things yet you both attack the side issues and play stupid (or maybe it's not an act?!?)

anyways you go d00ds go!

Å

 

[Doggiedog]

If you can't beat em, insult em. Your lack of ability to come up with a solid argument and your frequent tangential babbling makes me wonder who the mental midget is.

Anyway, coming from a guy who thinks its ok to be an adulterer, I'm sure most people here take no credence in what you say.

By the way, its a shame you have to quote stuff from my heritage down there. But again, its a free country and you are free to do what you want. Except buy SUVs of course.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Doggiedog
If you can't beat em, insult em. Your lack of ability to come up with a solid argument and your frequent tangential babbling makes me wonder who the mental midget is.

Anyway, coming from a guy who thinks its ok to be an adulterer, I'm sure most people here take no credence in what you say.

By the way, its a shame you have to quote stuff from my heritage down there. But again, its a free country and you are free to do what you want. Except buy SUVs of course.

jesus the irony above. Do you really understand what you say and what it means? You talk about me going on tangents, yet you bring up adultery? I am talking about 'your' heritage because I mention I come from a group that can afford third vehicles that don't get driven everyday?

Last but not least where did I say no one can buy SUV's??? I merely said they are the wrong choice and a dangerous choice for many, perhaps most.

Å

 

[Doggiedog]

Dude, do you know how to argue at all?

You go off on tangents on the main debate.

If you read the last paragraph at all its a response to your insult. You insult me, I'll bring something up on your character. No tangents there.

And where did I say YOU said no one can have SUVs?

 

Why doesn't anyone complain about tractor trailors?

At full load they get around 6-8mpg, with no load they get around 15mpg.

Dude, do you know how to argue at all?

You go off on tangents on the main debate.

If you read the last paragraph at all its a response to your insult. You insult me, I'll bring something up on your character. No tangents there.

And where did I say YOU said no one can have SUVs?

Don't argue with alkemyst, hes tough, and smart and a winner!

 

[Sspidie99]

I love SUV's, but I agree they are gas hogging brutes. Lately, though I have resorted to driving a nice fuel efficient passenger car. Long commute equals more money spent on gas. The biggest problem I have with SUV's are not the cars themselves, but the people who tend to drive them. Most people who buy these SUV's forget how large the vehicle really is. They do not know how to drive these cars. Everytime I drive up to Tahoe during a storm, there's always some idiot on side of the road. Of course for some reason, they decided that driving 70 mph during a snow storm was safe. People need to realize what the capablities of these vehicles are. People should not buy a SUV as a mini-van replacement. Especially if they really do not need it.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Doggiedog

And where did I say YOU said no one can have SUVs?

I don't know maybe I read too much into the reply you made which was: But again, its a free country and you are free to do what you want. Except buy SUVs of course.

Å

 

[MikeMike]

one other reason SUV's are insanely popular.

LUXURY CAR TAX

thats it, add 10% to an car over 30 grand, then compare it to an SUV you are looking at over 30 grand, which does not have a luxury tax added onto it.

you pick the SUV because it has the same options, slightly bigger, nicer, and the same cost.

please prove to me alkemyst where the hell i said anything you say i said. you turned it into a personal war, that wasnt what i wanted. now, i NEVER said "you must just take the truck" where i live, the trucks are every day first cars, yes, when ppl borrow the truck, you get theirs, but the people dont take nearly as much caution with the truck as my father does. i responded to every question you both posed, and replied to your posts, i had one response that might have ticked you off, but seriously. do you drive as close to a semi as you do an SUV? do you get mad that you cant see around a SEMI? no, its because your used to them. get used to SUV's they will be around for a while.

MIKE

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: nourdmrolNMT1
i responded to every question you both posed, and replied to your posts, i had one response that might have ticked you off, but seriously. do you drive as close to a semi as you do an SUV? do you get mad that you cant see around a SEMI? no, its because your used to them. get used to SUV's they will be around for a while.

MIKE

You made two assumptions that are incorrect. I originally said SUV drivers follow too close or stay in my blind spots or park *right* next to me....I follow far enough away as do most people. Somehow you are pretty confused on the 'SUV causing people not to be able to see' issue.

Also about your Semi point....a semi is not going to be parking next to me at the movies or blockbuster. On top of that they require special licensing as well as taxing/tolls....

Also I am not only speaking to you in my replies.

Å

 

[MikeMike]

The last two posters have proven to be mental midgets

thats directed towards me.

so i responded to it

MIKE

 

[Officerdown]

My SUV loves Iraqi oil!

I'll tell you people something else, all you Liberal Democrats. There is nothing better than driving my gas guzzling SUV on the interstate, tailgating people, talking on my cell phone and than tossing my empty Starbucks coffee cup out the window.

Live better... drive an SUV.

 

[Officerdown]

Besides my SUV can kick your Yugo's ass.

 

[gloval]

Why are SUV's the only vehicles that get ripped on for gas guzzling?

because nobody suspects my little japanese coupe of getting 13mpg! muahahaha

 

[agnitrate]

I don't have time to read all the responses to this thread, but I will contribute this:

The extra gas-guzzling tax is the only reason I wasn't able to purchase my Lamborghini Murcielago and Ferrari Enzo They always find a way to screw you out of a few extra bucks and that sealed the deal for me.

-silver

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: nourdmrolNMT1
<blockquote>Quote
Originally posted by: FrustratedUser
<blockquote>Quote
Originally posted by: nourdmrolNMT1
<blockquote>Quote
Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
because they kill 5x more ppl than the average car while still being 6% more lethal to the driver inside when rollovers are factored in

1) so they waste gas
2) AND aren't safe

as for sports cars, they're a waste of gas true. but nowhere near as lethal as an SUV since they don't have 250% momentum "quad damage" bonus. plus the middle-aged balding semi-impotent man behind the wheel of a sports car is more responsible since he is going thru is mid-life crisis but necessarily wanting to end it. while SUVs are driven by egocentric inexperienced youngs that think they're invincible.

1) so they waste gas

complete bull.

take your sports car, lets use the mustang (see, im not GM biased!) it weighs 3450 lbs or 1547 Kg.
your typical SUV, lets use the Tahoe. it weighs 6500 lbs gvw 2wd or 2948 kg.

now, take your comfortable cruising speed in both. tahoe, i would say you are comfortable around 70 mph or 31.29 m/s (meters)
for the mustang, i would say you could comforably cruise at 90mph or 40.23 m/s

now, 31.29m/s * 2948kg = 92242N
and 40.23m/s * 1547kg = 62235N <--- thats a HELL of a lot of force, anyway you look at it. and yes, that is assuming 90-0 in 0sec. flat.

250% momentum damage? more around 67% more force.

so, because SUV's are made higher, they make themselves unsafe? hmm, why dont cars go higher, then it would be equal. think of it both ways.

middle aged, balding men drive sports cars, true, young teens drive mustangs, because they are cheap. middle-aged balding men also drive SUV's, my father drives one, most of my uncles drive them. you cant say young ppl only drive them.

and rollovers, ok, so certain suv's have a high center of gravity.

MIKE[/quote]



<blockquote>Quote
now, 31.29m/s * 2948kg = 92242N
and 40.23m/s * 1547kg = 62235N [/quote]

What kind of weird way is that of calculating force? kg x (m/s) != N[/quote]

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[/quote]

Nonetheless, your results are based on bullshit data. I'd have to say that the average speed a mustang is driven isn't that much different from the average speed that a Tahoe is driven. Where you get the idea that the mustang is going to be going 90mph is beyond me. Unless mustang drivers get a couple of speeding tickets a day. (or you travel exclusively on some interstates and turnpikes) Plus, it's obvious, since you're calling it a "deceleration speed", and a deceleration speed measured in seconds at that, that you're really not good enough in physics to be attempting to use it to prove your point.

If a Tahoe has a head on collision with a regular car with far less mass, each going identical speeds, because of conservation of momentum, the Tahoe will not slow down as much as the car, the car will actually be knocked backwards - the magnitude of the change in momentum of the car will be GREATER than the momentum it had before the collision. Thus, driving a typical car head on into a Tahoe, each going 65 mph, will, for the car, have about the same effects and running into a brick wall at 90 mph (or more). (of course, a brick wall that begins a little higher off the ground)

Add on to this that a majority of accidents happen at city speeds, not highway speeds. Personally, in the instance of getting t-boned by another vehicle, I'd much rather have the kinetic energy of the colliding vehicle dissipated by the change in velocity of my car when the frame takes the brunt of the hit, rather than the energy being dissipated by the deformation of metal (the door) into my torso - ouch. It's really hard to compare apples and oranges, (and all the other fruits, since every make/model is different), but if you simply look at the rates, you'll see that SUV's are far more dangerous other cars. It's not a matter of 100 people were killed by SUV's and 25 were killed by sports cars - that's because there are more SUV's... (I'm making this data up, obviously), it's more "50% of accidents between a car and SUV resulted in serious injury to the car driver" vs. "25% of accidents between a car and sports car resulted in serious injury to the car driver." (again, more made up data, but the data is correct in that the percentage of serious injuries is higher for SUV's to cars.)

The gas issue is really because there are too many idiots in the U.S. who just want to join a cause, even if they really don't understand all the issues of the cause (although they usually think they do.) Which is why if you find a rally of these "irrational pig fvckers" as Mill so eloquently put it, you can convince 80% or more of them to sign a petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide (water) - "did you know that dihydrogen monoxide is a major constituent of acid rain?! Let's ban industrial use of this harmful chemical that also contributes to soil erosion." All in all though, decreasing the demand for gasoline (should) cause the prices to fall (excepting that OPEC will attempt to keep them higher) resulting in decreased costs for producing and distributing most goods in the U.S.

edit: I'm just answering the original question: why are SUV's the only vehicles that get ripped on for gas guzzling? Also, sorry for bumping such an old (but bumped prior to me) thread - the option of showing newest threads first, rather than most recently replied threads has disappeared in the new incarnation of fusetalk.

 

[Mookow]

The biggest thing about SUVs that pisses me off is the headlights. Specificly, the fact that their mounted so frigging high almost any car you drive will reflect the lights via the side mirrors and right into you eyes. Sure, this happens with non-SUVs, too, but it takes a "taller" vehicle such as a truck or SUV to be so fscking bright. I'd be happier if they put the bumpers and headlights to the level that they are on cars. Thats about the only regulatory measures on SUVs that I really want to see implemented right fscking now.

In general though, you want a vehicle that is going to give you 12 MPG, fine. Just dont expect a ton of sympathy when you are bitching about the $50 it costs to top off your Suburban. I dont point and laugh because I'm not very happy with $1.80/gallon, either, but the MPG for your vehicle is public knowledge, and you should know it before buying. I'm not happy about the way they block my vision, but mini-vans do that too. I'd like it if SUVs were regulated same as cars (emission standards, etc) for those built on car platforms. And it'd be nice if people had to prove that they could competently manuver and parallel park their large SUVs (H1s, Suburbans, Expeditions, etc) or dualie trucks (though the drivers on a 3500 series truck generally have more experience backing their vehicle up), but I dont see that happening any time soon.

 

[Excelsior]

The only thing that pisses me off about them is when the soccer mom gets a big ass V8 and 4WD, here in Charlotte. WTF..is she retarded? She'll never tow a damn thing, nor will she need the power or the 4WD, but she still gets it.