SUVs Are....
-
Repo Man
- Moderator
- Posts: 8980
- Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2002 6:52 am
- Car: 2020 Frontier Pro4X
2003 Honda Accord - Location: Indy
- Contact:
AZhitman wrote:
It must be a Canuck thing that we wouldn't understand.
It's my opinion that SUV's are like Hondas.
Well, it's not the actual vehicle that people hate. It's the people that drive them. The housewives that just stepped out of their subcompact and now drive an Expedition and don't understand the vehicle dynamics. They're just bad drivers. I hate bad driver regardless of what vehicle they happen to be driving. I hate bad drivers in Infinitis and Nissans the same way I hate them in *insert name of SUV here*. The fact is that people can drive whatever the hell they want and that's the way it should be. And let's face it, an SUV is an incredibly useful vehicle, especially if you have a bunch of rugrats, a boat, horses, work trailer, racecar trailer or whatever to pull. Great for tailgating, hunting, going to the shooting range, carrying groceries, carrying appliances, to you name it. There is a reason that they're so popular.
I had a '00 Chevy ZR2 Blazer and it was wicked offroad. It went places that Jeeps got stuck. Offroading is it's own experience and not something you can do in a car. Not real offroading anyway.
So, I guess in effect the SUV IS like Tino's mom's douche water. That water was highly useful to Tino's mom, just like SUV's are useful to their owners. Oh yeah, at least Tino's mom bathes and has personal hygiene, unlike Freak's stanky mom...:icesangel
-
MaineExport
- Posts: 3784
- Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2002 3:27 pm
- Car: 95 Nissan 240SX FAL fans AEM intake Hot Shot header Apexi N1 dual Exhaust VLSD ABS NX 50 shot
Originally posted by VimyJ "]The use of resources as it pertains to the SUV is exactly the question at hand and is the thrust of this thread. You write, "Baby steps are taken every day to help cure the problem. But to simply remove one source of the problem won't even cure the symptoms, let alone the disease." Your statement doesn't make sense. You admit that there is a problem but the best rememdy for the problem is not to tackle the problem?
Allow me to clarify: What I am saying is that SUV's are a PART of the problem in every way that any motor vehicle is part of the very same problem. The solution to this problem is not going to be found by eliminating the non-commercial use of SUVs. Someone who's body is riddled with cancer isn't going to be cured by removing one tumor, even if it happens to be a large one.
As a society we take 'baby steps' in an effort to systematically correct a problem that has taken decades to create. It will likely take decades to correct as well. Vehicles of all types become more efficient every year. This is often the result of legislation, but in many cases it is because the manufacturers realize that it is in their best interest to do so. The bottom line is proitability, and auto-makers will do what is likely to generate sales.
I don't pretend to have a solution to our problem of consumpotion of resources. But you started the thread asking about SUVs being a good use of resources or a poor one. Well, no car is a truely GOOD use of resources so it becomes a mute point. Then you (or maybe it was somebody else) went on to tie this topic in with the nation's seemingly disproportionate use of resources. The two issues do not go hand in hand, and the implication was made that somehow eliminating SUV's was an answer. This is a ridiculous notion.
Taxes are as much an effort to influence behavior, as they are to generate revenue. We already tax the b'jaysus out of gasoline.. why not have a special SUV tax.... wooo hooo!!:rolleyes
Allow me to clarify: What I am saying is that SUV's are a PART of the problem in every way that any motor vehicle is part of the very same problem. The solution to this problem is not going to be found by eliminating the non-commercial use of SUVs. Someone who's body is riddled with cancer isn't going to be cured by removing one tumor, even if it happens to be a large one.
As a society we take 'baby steps' in an effort to systematically correct a problem that has taken decades to create. It will likely take decades to correct as well. Vehicles of all types become more efficient every year. This is often the result of legislation, but in many cases it is because the manufacturers realize that it is in their best interest to do so. The bottom line is proitability, and auto-makers will do what is likely to generate sales.
I don't pretend to have a solution to our problem of consumpotion of resources. But you started the thread asking about SUVs being a good use of resources or a poor one. Well, no car is a truely GOOD use of resources so it becomes a mute point. Then you (or maybe it was somebody else) went on to tie this topic in with the nation's seemingly disproportionate use of resources. The two issues do not go hand in hand, and the implication was made that somehow eliminating SUV's was an answer. This is a ridiculous notion.
Taxes are as much an effort to influence behavior, as they are to generate revenue. We already tax the b'jaysus out of gasoline.. why not have a special SUV tax.... wooo hooo!!:rolleyes
The cancer metaphore is a little over the top. How about the fattie metaphore instead? If one is a fattie, then how about cutting down on the jelly doughnuts? The fattie has the problem of overconsumption that results in serious health issues.maineimport wrote:Originally posted by VimyJ
Allow me to clarify: What I am saying is that SUV's are a PART of the problem in every way that any motor vehicle is part of the very same problem. The solution to this problem is not going to be found by eliminating the non-commercial use of SUVs. Someone who's body is riddled with cancer isn't going to be cured by removing one tumor, even if it happens to be a large one.
Unfortunately, you also give too much credit to business implying that all the the advances in the auto industry are due entirely to the profit motive. Where you ever able to be in S. California in the 70's? I remember visiting relatives there when I was a kid and the pollution was incredible. Some days you couldn't even see across the street. In the years that have passed, stricter government imposed emission standards have greatly improved the smog problem. The car manufaturers have had to add things like EGRs and cats and they didn't like that at first but the enviromental advantages are evident and there are probably 50% more cars in S. Cal now than in the 70's.
You say that no car is really a good use of resources but that is a throw the baby out with the bath water attitude. Some automotive applications are better than others. This is why you don't see top fuel dragsters used as daily commuters and it's not because they are hard to parallel park.
News reports are saying gasoline prices are going to rise steeply in the coming weeks because of the Venezuela situation. How much you want to bet that this will cause a decrease in SUV sales? The used car lots in coming years will be full of stinking SUV's as people dump them in favour of the newly fashionable hybrids and once again the Japanese will have the jump on the competition. They will gobble up market share just like they did in the 70's when they offered fuel efficient vehicles while Detroit buried its head in the sand.
-
MaineExport
- Posts: 3784
- Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2002 3:27 pm
- Car: 95 Nissan 240SX FAL fans AEM intake Hot Shot header Apexi N1 dual Exhaust VLSD ABS NX 50 shot
I know the profit motive is not the only factor in the decision of automobie manufacturers to innovate, reduce emissions, and make vehicles more efficient. If you would be so kind as to read my post again, I said, "This is often the result of legislation,". By that I meant, this is often the result of legislation. I guess you must have missed that. I've never been to california, but Boston was bad enough, thanks.
Lets use your fattie example. Removing jelly donuts from the equation won't solve the problem either. The caloric intake will likely be substituted elsewhere. Aslo, the root of his fat a** may be hypoglycemia or some other ailment, completely unrelated to his food intake. So again, the problem is not solved by removing one source. Just becuase jelly donuts are an inefficient use of powdered sugar, does not mean they caused fatty to blimp up.
You say that no car is really a good use of resources but that is a throw the baby out with the bath water attitude. Some automotive applications are better than others.
Yes, some are better than others. Had you asked if SUV's were a BETTER use of resources, or WORSE use of resources than a compact economy car, then the use of resources would be a valid consideration in the answer. But, since you are asking if they are simply a good or bad use of resources, the question becomes irrelevant because NO motor vehicle is a TRUELY good use of rsources..... some are just better than others.
Lets use your fattie example. Removing jelly donuts from the equation won't solve the problem either. The caloric intake will likely be substituted elsewhere. Aslo, the root of his fat a** may be hypoglycemia or some other ailment, completely unrelated to his food intake. So again, the problem is not solved by removing one source. Just becuase jelly donuts are an inefficient use of powdered sugar, does not mean they caused fatty to blimp up.
You say that no car is really a good use of resources but that is a throw the baby out with the bath water attitude. Some automotive applications are better than others.
Yes, some are better than others. Had you asked if SUV's were a BETTER use of resources, or WORSE use of resources than a compact economy car, then the use of resources would be a valid consideration in the answer. But, since you are asking if they are simply a good or bad use of resources, the question becomes irrelevant because NO motor vehicle is a TRUELY good use of rsources..... some are just better than others.
repo man wrote:Nah, there's good sh.it in there. Well developed opinions and such. I could cook all the way through, but it's not necessary.
Where you been lately Freak?
I recently was drifting the car and i was heel toeing and my toe which was wet from snow slipped off the brake... i reapplied but i applied to much force to the brake... i dont have abs and i locked up the brakes.. within a few seconds i side swiped a concrete light standard.... now i need a new right front fender and money to get a bod shop to bang out the back one... then repaint... it's really my frist accident... i wish this feeling on no one....
So far, not one person has deemed the SUV "a generally good use of resources." 14 members consider them poor. The third opinion was, in fact, a trick answer. Because SUV's are a consumer of resources, the third answer is wrong since every vehicle is germain to the consumption of resources. The third option was put there to expose political bias or, at least, circular logic.
Note, however, the first two answers contain the word "generally". Certainly, there are legitimate uses for the SUV but keeping up with the Jones' isn't one of them and isn't that what sells the vast majority of SUV's?
Note, however, the first two answers contain the word "generally". Certainly, there are legitimate uses for the SUV but keeping up with the Jones' isn't one of them and isn't that what sells the vast majority of SUV's?
-
MaineExport
- Posts: 3784
- Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2002 3:27 pm
- Car: 95 Nissan 240SX FAL fans AEM intake Hot Shot header Apexi N1 dual Exhaust VLSD ABS NX 50 shot
-
Get240DiZzY
- Posts: 993
- Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 12:05 pm
- Car: Rallying. My 240. Not at the same time though.
- Contact:
Wow, I don't check back for 3 days and look... the thread triples in size!
Hey Hitman, glad I got a rise outta you. To defend myself after being :owned by you :rolleyes, I'll concede I am a bit biased towrds SUV's, after losing a car to an inexpierienced driver.
BTW FrEaK, they aren't highbeaming you, it's their normal headlights...
Hey Hitman, glad I got a rise outta you. To defend myself after being :owned by you :rolleyes, I'll concede I am a bit biased towrds SUV's, after losing a car to an inexpierienced driver.
BTW FrEaK, they aren't highbeaming you, it's their normal headlights...
-
AZhitman
- Administrator
- Posts: 54542
- Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 2:04 am
- Car: 58 L210, 63 Bluebird RHD, 64 NL320, 65 SPL310, 66 411 RHD, 67 WRL411, 68 510 SR20, 75 280Z RB25, 77 620 SR20, 79 B310, 90 Z32, 91 GTi-R, 92 Silvia Qs, 98 S14, 23 Z.
- Location: Surprise, Arizona
- Contact:
LOL @ Mike and Dizzy - But I never have (and never will) claim to OWN anyone. Thet would be slavery (or at least indentured servitude). Both are things that I, as an American and lover of democracy, liberty, and freedom, simply cannot condone. 
I do, however, enjoy sharing my talents (on loan from God) with some of my less-enlightened (or misguided) brothas.
p.s. Dizzy - I was already pretty sure your post was influenced by some prior misfortune - No offense taken either way, bud!
I do, however, enjoy sharing my talents (on loan from God) with some of my less-enlightened (or misguided) brothas.
p.s. Dizzy - I was already pretty sure your post was influenced by some prior misfortune - No offense taken either way, bud!
-
Get240DiZzY
- Posts: 993
- Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 12:05 pm
- Car: Rallying. My 240. Not at the same time though.
- Contact:
-
MaineExport
- Posts: 3784
- Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2002 3:27 pm
- Car: 95 Nissan 240SX FAL fans AEM intake Hot Shot header Apexi N1 dual Exhaust VLSD ABS NX 50 shot
-
Stoneage_Turbo
- Posts: 2178
- Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2002 3:33 am
- Car: 1994 Caddy Deville 4.9
Just about anything