Bignate603
Lifer
- Sep 5, 2000
- 13,897
- 1
- 0
My friend has a 75 yello chevy truck with a 10inch body lift and 41 inch tires on it. Supposedly its illegal in CA but its fun as all hell to ride in. Youre sitting level with bigrigs. We took it to the local highschool and spun donuts in the football field. 
<< Try plowing 1 foot of snow for a few hours with a Navigator or Escalade. >>
LMAO!!! I'd pay to see that.
Beast - I was gonna say a 4WD truck too. I was talking with a snowplow driver the other day and he was going off on how many SUVs he's seen loose control and in the ditch when he's out plowing. Might be the driver's fault though...he didn't say much more.
- Oct 28, 1999
- 62,484
- 8,345
- 126
genocide, the milage in both minvans and cargo vans is pretty downright horrid as well.
Check out this link at edmunds. It's a gas milage thread for van owners. A lot of the full size cargo vans are pulling low teens and even single digits.
Many mini vans are pulling mid to low 20's on the highway. My Jimmy 4x4 consistently pulls 24 MPG on the highway @ 65 MPH. Gas guzzling? Maybe. Compared to the competition. Hardly.
Check out this link at edmunds. It's a gas milage thread for van owners. A lot of the full size cargo vans are pulling low teens and even single digits.
Many mini vans are pulling mid to low 20's on the highway. My Jimmy 4x4 consistently pulls 24 MPG on the highway @ 65 MPH. Gas guzzling? Maybe. Compared to the competition. Hardly.
audi wagon may fit your bill the 2.7TURBO is pretty efficient and will kick up a storm of AWD dust when needed
expensive
expensive
- Oct 28, 1999
- 62,484
- 8,345
- 126
Emulex, nice try. Not only does the Audi Allroad sticker at around 41k-42k, it also gets 15MPG in the city and around 21 on the highway. That's not so bad until you figure in that you have to put premium fuel in it. Premium fuel runs anwhere from $.10 to .$20 more a gallon that the cheap stuff that most domestic SUV's require. Hmmmm....lower gas milage and requires premium fuel. Hows that better than an SUV again?
Also, once you figure in the extremely high insurance premiums you are paying FAR more for that Audi than the sticker initally shows.
Also, once you figure in the extremely high insurance premiums you are paying FAR more for that Audi than the sticker initally shows.
Just get a dually pickup, and your grip worries are over.
And most can haul massive amounts of weight.
And most can haul massive amounts of weight.
Beast,
It looks like you are in a "take all comers" fighting mood here, so I guess I'll chime in my 2 cents.
There's no question that if someone comes up with every possible situation that they could have (bad weather, towing, etc) that they can then justify the purchase of a vehicle like that. Realistically though how often do people tow a boat or camper? Personally for me I would rather drive something fun that meets 90% of my needs for 99% of the year and rent a vehicle to tow something on the rare occassion that I need it.
In the wintertime, my A4 with Quattro can easily make it through even deep snow. If the snow is so unbelievably deep that I can't get through it in my car, most SUV's are probably having trouble as well. There are many other vehicles that do ok in the snow... I drove a front wheel drive POS Ford Tempo for years when I was growing up in northern Vermont where we get tons of snow and was stuck probably twice in four years of rough winters driving on nearly bald tires.
The real beef that I and a lot of other people have with these things is not your right to choose the vehicle that suits you, but the fact that these vehicles are used as passenger cars yet are not required to meet any passenger car requirements (minimum mpg to avoid gas guzzler tax, safety, etc).
A lot of people think that SUV's are safer than cars... think again. The majority of fatal collisions involve a rollover. SUV's on average are 2 to 3 times as likely to roll in a collision as a car. Additionally many SUV's are built on ladder frames which are not designed to conform in an impact (crumple zone). A ladder frame is great for when you get into an impact with a soft target (a car) but you are in very bad shape if you hit a solid obstacle (such as a median or another SUV). In those situations the passengers will take much more of the kinetic energy than they would if they were in a car that had a unibody. Additionally SUV's don't handle nearly as well as cars... so they are harder to keep out of an accident in the first place. They also block the view for regular sized vehicles, which slows up traffic at intersections and makes passing and other normal traffic manuevers more dangerous. This wasn't a big deal when the only people buying these things were the true offroad enthusiasts, but now that every soccor mom is driving one it is becoming a real problem.
If an SUV was designed to meet the safety requirements that passenger cars have to meet as well as the mpg requirements, they would cost a lot more than they do now. In fact the only SUV's that do these things today are the European (BMW X5, Audi Allroad) or Japanese ones (Lexus, etc) and guess what? They cost a heck of a lot more. The reason that the American auto makers hawk these SUV's as being the "kings of the road" is that they make a huge markup on them. A Ford Explorer that sells for $30K is built on the same ranger chassis that can be has for under $20K. If you want to fatten their pockets that much by purchasing a decked out pickup truck, more power to you.
It looks like you are in a "take all comers" fighting mood here, so I guess I'll chime in my 2 cents.
There's no question that if someone comes up with every possible situation that they could have (bad weather, towing, etc) that they can then justify the purchase of a vehicle like that. Realistically though how often do people tow a boat or camper? Personally for me I would rather drive something fun that meets 90% of my needs for 99% of the year and rent a vehicle to tow something on the rare occassion that I need it.
In the wintertime, my A4 with Quattro can easily make it through even deep snow. If the snow is so unbelievably deep that I can't get through it in my car, most SUV's are probably having trouble as well. There are many other vehicles that do ok in the snow... I drove a front wheel drive POS Ford Tempo for years when I was growing up in northern Vermont where we get tons of snow and was stuck probably twice in four years of rough winters driving on nearly bald tires.
The real beef that I and a lot of other people have with these things is not your right to choose the vehicle that suits you, but the fact that these vehicles are used as passenger cars yet are not required to meet any passenger car requirements (minimum mpg to avoid gas guzzler tax, safety, etc).
A lot of people think that SUV's are safer than cars... think again. The majority of fatal collisions involve a rollover. SUV's on average are 2 to 3 times as likely to roll in a collision as a car. Additionally many SUV's are built on ladder frames which are not designed to conform in an impact (crumple zone). A ladder frame is great for when you get into an impact with a soft target (a car) but you are in very bad shape if you hit a solid obstacle (such as a median or another SUV). In those situations the passengers will take much more of the kinetic energy than they would if they were in a car that had a unibody. Additionally SUV's don't handle nearly as well as cars... so they are harder to keep out of an accident in the first place. They also block the view for regular sized vehicles, which slows up traffic at intersections and makes passing and other normal traffic manuevers more dangerous. This wasn't a big deal when the only people buying these things were the true offroad enthusiasts, but now that every soccor mom is driving one it is becoming a real problem.
If an SUV was designed to meet the safety requirements that passenger cars have to meet as well as the mpg requirements, they would cost a lot more than they do now. In fact the only SUV's that do these things today are the European (BMW X5, Audi Allroad) or Japanese ones (Lexus, etc) and guess what? They cost a heck of a lot more. The reason that the American auto makers hawk these SUV's as being the "kings of the road" is that they make a huge markup on them. A Ford Explorer that sells for $30K is built on the same ranger chassis that can be has for under $20K. If you want to fatten their pockets that much by purchasing a decked out pickup truck, more power to you.
SUV's are a waste
drive crappy and only the crappy drive them, they are a drain on natural resources, and if your gonna drain natural resources do it in style in a nice vette, viper, or cadillac not a big clunky suv, I take tight cornering and high speeds over big bulky, soccer mom driving pieces of garbage anyday
two exceptions the escalade and the navigator, while I would not buy them they are really nice
drive crappy and only the crappy drive them, they are a drain on natural resources, and if your gonna drain natural resources do it in style in a nice vette, viper, or cadillac not a big clunky suv, I take tight cornering and high speeds over big bulky, soccer mom driving pieces of garbage anyday
two exceptions the escalade and the navigator, while I would not buy them they are really nice
Subaru Outback with the V6. Nuff said. They call it an SUV, but it isn't really.
They have a V6 now? I didn't know that. How big and how much HP and torque?
They have a V6 now? I didn't know that. How big and how much HP and torque?
If you want to haul people, have 4wd, and tow a decent sized boat, there is no alternative to an SUV. A 4 door pickup is the closest thing. I've noticed many responses here by SUV haters, but none has come up with an alternative.
I will disagree that an SUV such as s Tahoe or Expedition/Navigator is better in the snow than a pickup. They are the same thing, minus a roof in the rear. The slight weight difference is negligible. Both go in the snow equally as well, and you wouldn't be afraid to put some wood or cinder blocks in the rear of the truck if you needed to.
As far as your Audis, Subarus, etc, go ahead and hook a good sized trailer to them and see if it's REALLY capable of pulling that load. It's not, plain and simple, no more so than an Expedition is realistically capable of pulling 7000+ lbs like Ford claim.
<<my '85 crown vic probably could, it does well in the snow if you use common sense (I live in upstate NY too, lol). The 4.3 liter V8 engine could most likely tow that boat as well as most SUV's>>
Not. And there is no such thing as a 85 Crown with a 4.3liter V-8 either. It is 5.0 or 5.8.
<<<< Try plowing 1 foot of snow for a few hours with a Navigator or Escalade. >>
Wouldn't be any different outcome than doing the same with an F-150 or C-10. Just costs more for those two particular SUV's.
<<Any vehicle will perform well in snow if you get snow tires. Heck, my Saturn with snow tires will run rings around a SUV/truck with all-seasons in snow.>>
Wrong, wrong, wrong. NO 2wd vehicle will go better in the snow than a 4wd vehicle. Yes, a FWD will pull better than a RWD, but that's it. I've pulled FWD cars UP hills that they couldn't climb with my 4X4. Not steep ones, either.
I will disagree that an SUV such as s Tahoe or Expedition/Navigator is better in the snow than a pickup. They are the same thing, minus a roof in the rear. The slight weight difference is negligible. Both go in the snow equally as well, and you wouldn't be afraid to put some wood or cinder blocks in the rear of the truck if you needed to.
As far as your Audis, Subarus, etc, go ahead and hook a good sized trailer to them and see if it's REALLY capable of pulling that load. It's not, plain and simple, no more so than an Expedition is realistically capable of pulling 7000+ lbs like Ford claim.
<<my '85 crown vic probably could, it does well in the snow if you use common sense (I live in upstate NY too, lol). The 4.3 liter V8 engine could most likely tow that boat as well as most SUV's>>
Not. And there is no such thing as a 85 Crown with a 4.3liter V-8 either. It is 5.0 or 5.8.
<<<< Try plowing 1 foot of snow for a few hours with a Navigator or Escalade. >>
Wouldn't be any different outcome than doing the same with an F-150 or C-10. Just costs more for those two particular SUV's.
<<Any vehicle will perform well in snow if you get snow tires. Heck, my Saturn with snow tires will run rings around a SUV/truck with all-seasons in snow.>>
Wrong, wrong, wrong. NO 2wd vehicle will go better in the snow than a 4wd vehicle. Yes, a FWD will pull better than a RWD, but that's it. I've pulled FWD cars UP hills that they couldn't climb with my 4X4. Not steep ones, either.
4x4 truck is better that most suv's in my opinion
get snow tires on them and you have no problems
as long as you have fwd or 4x4 you'll do fine in snow
get snow tires on them and you have no problems
as long as you have fwd or 4x4 you'll do fine in snow
Pacfansweb,
How much and how often do you tow?
Are you opposed to SUV's having to meet more stringent fuel efficiency and safety requirements? If so, why?
How much and how often do you tow?
Are you opposed to SUV's having to meet more stringent fuel efficiency and safety requirements? If so, why?
- Oct 28, 1999
- 62,484
- 8,345
- 126
gunf1ghter, look at my link below to the edmunds.com town hall discussion of minvans gas milage.
There are MANY people on there with minivans, full size vans, cargo vans, and conversion vans that get worse milage than my midsize SUV (GMC Jimmy). Why aren't you people bitching about the gas milage efficiency of those?
There are MANY people on there with minivans, full size vans, cargo vans, and conversion vans that get worse milage than my midsize SUV (GMC Jimmy). Why aren't you people bitching about the gas milage efficiency of those?
<<How much and how often do you tow?>>
I tow my race truck 2-3 weekends per month from approx. March to November. Total weight is a bit over 5,000 lbs. I drive a Tahoe. I drive 7 miles to work everyday. Would driving a Taurus really make any noticeable difference fuel-wise? A little, maybe. I'm also 6'4" tall. I can't drive any car and be comfortable. Should I be penalized for that?
<<Are you opposed to SUV's having to meet more stringent fuel efficiency and safety requirements? If so, why? >>
Yes. SUV's, when driven by people with a clue, are the safest vehicles on the road, IMO. Don't talk to me about rollovers, either. That can happen to any car. I'd rather roll over in my Tahoe than in a Taurus. Besides, a full-size SUV(of which there are only 2 kinds, Ford and Chevy), are no more likely to roll over than the full size truck that it's identical to. Any other kind of accident, I'll take my chances in my Tahoe. It's one of the safest cars around, if memory serves. Anybody with even a little common sense knows you can't perform the same manuevers in an SUV as a car, and adjusts accordingly.
As far as more stringent fuel efficiency, why? There is plenty of gas, and I say if you can afford it, burn it. If they put some kind of luxury tax on SUV's because they are popular and expensive, should they by the same reasoning give a refund to people who buy econoboxes?
Should there be the same fuel standards on trucks? Remember, Ford and Chevy trucks are the top 2 in vehicle sales and have been for years.
Bottom line is this: If you use your SUV for daily transportation, you shouldn't be subjected to any different rules than someone who owns a car. It's simply personal preference. SUV's are, RIGHT NOW, required to meet the same emissions requirements as cars.
If you use an SUV for business, and are driving high miles, well...that's a gray area that can be discussed.
I tow my race truck 2-3 weekends per month from approx. March to November. Total weight is a bit over 5,000 lbs. I drive a Tahoe. I drive 7 miles to work everyday. Would driving a Taurus really make any noticeable difference fuel-wise? A little, maybe. I'm also 6'4" tall. I can't drive any car and be comfortable. Should I be penalized for that?
<<Are you opposed to SUV's having to meet more stringent fuel efficiency and safety requirements? If so, why? >>
Yes. SUV's, when driven by people with a clue, are the safest vehicles on the road, IMO. Don't talk to me about rollovers, either. That can happen to any car. I'd rather roll over in my Tahoe than in a Taurus. Besides, a full-size SUV(of which there are only 2 kinds, Ford and Chevy), are no more likely to roll over than the full size truck that it's identical to. Any other kind of accident, I'll take my chances in my Tahoe. It's one of the safest cars around, if memory serves. Anybody with even a little common sense knows you can't perform the same manuevers in an SUV as a car, and adjusts accordingly.
As far as more stringent fuel efficiency, why? There is plenty of gas, and I say if you can afford it, burn it. If they put some kind of luxury tax on SUV's because they are popular and expensive, should they by the same reasoning give a refund to people who buy econoboxes?
Should there be the same fuel standards on trucks? Remember, Ford and Chevy trucks are the top 2 in vehicle sales and have been for years.
Bottom line is this: If you use your SUV for daily transportation, you shouldn't be subjected to any different rules than someone who owns a car. It's simply personal preference. SUV's are, RIGHT NOW, required to meet the same emissions requirements as cars.
If you use an SUV for business, and are driving high miles, well...that's a gray area that can be discussed.
How about a Tank? It fits all of your requirements: it will kick ass on any terrain, can easily tow a measly 20 foot long boat, and it even has the GPS system that you like. What it lacks in luxury it makes up for in firepower and coolness.
BTW, I drive a 91 explorer, and love it(even though its not a wrangler)
m00se
BTW, I drive a 91 explorer, and love it(even though its not a wrangler)
m00se
Yes. SUV's, when driven by people with a clue, are the safest vehicles on the road, IMO
Well, that's a problem isn't it? They aren't just being driven by people with a clue.
vi_edit.
as to fuel efficiency of minivans.... even if they are getting as good or worse mileage than SUV's I am not surprised, minivans are designed to carry as many as 8 adults PLUS their stuff. Additionally minivans are about a million times safer than an SUV.
frankly, people can drive whatever they hell they want to drive, I just think it's BULLSH*T that these things don't meet the regulations that ALL cars have to because when the bills were written they made up 1% of the transport out there, now they are pushing 20% (and 50% of new "car" purchases) and still get by with the same loopholes.
Well, that's a problem isn't it? They aren't just being driven by people with a clue.
vi_edit.
as to fuel efficiency of minivans.... even if they are getting as good or worse mileage than SUV's I am not surprised, minivans are designed to carry as many as 8 adults PLUS their stuff. Additionally minivans are about a million times safer than an SUV.
frankly, people can drive whatever they hell they want to drive, I just think it's BULLSH*T that these things don't meet the regulations that ALL cars have to because when the bills were written they made up 1% of the transport out there, now they are pushing 20% (and 50% of new "car" purchases) and still get by with the same loopholes.
My pick for the best SUV is the new Mercedes G wagons, those things are friggen sweet. Mercedes makes them for the German army, sort of like a Benz Hummer.
a minivan.
i have done all those things in my parents minivan.
*kat. <-- hates suvs and minivans
i have done all those things in my parents minivan.
*kat. <-- hates suvs and minivans
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: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter