SUVs Are....

[VimyJ]

Are SUVs...SUVs are...

[AZhitman]

Been there, done that, alternatives explored, conclusions reached.

Sorry Mike - just weary of SUV-bashing.

[deesolballs]

This has to be put into the proper perspective. For example, a close friend of mine has 9 children. Add him and the wife and that merits an 11 passenger vehicle (cargo not included). He traded in his suburban and got one of those dodge short bus looking vans.

I have another buddy who is single and drives a 7 passenger Navigator. Wasteful but no more wasteful than a couple owning a 4-5 bedroom home and only using two rooms (the other two rooms have to be heated, cooled, furnished, and cleaned right?). How about going to a buffet and eating until your navel shoots across the room and puts out someone's eye? Pretty wasteful, not even considering the food we throw away!

How about flushing after each piss? That’s a waste of 10 gallons of water to dispose of 1 cup of ammonia smelling urine, flush at the end of the day if you didn't drop a stankin’ turd in there.

If you race or autocross your car or drive like Bo and Luke Duke on a daily basis (many on this board are guilty) then you too are pretty rough on resources. Hard driving = bad gas mileage.

Let us assume that a 1st gen Q driver gets 15-16mpg (not adding in his spirited jaunts) and a Navigator driver gets 12-13. Not a big difference.

At 12000 miles per year the Q would use about 774 gallons of fuel at a cost of $1354.50 (1.75 for premium, HITMAN adds about a 1.50 per month for the cost of one pickled pig's foot) compared to the Nav using 888 gallons costing $1554 or $1465 if it uses mid-grade fuel (which is suggested). Not that big of a difference for those of us who drive big V8s. Now for you soggy turd drivers its another story.

We are wasteful basturds in general because we have an abundance of so many different things. I think we should curb our appetites across the board and not save our ire for SUVs.

*EDIT* I almost forgot......Dammit!!

[VimyJ]

Quote »

At 12000 miles per year the Q would use about 774 gallons of fuel at a cost of $1354.50 (1.75 for premium, HITMAN adds about a 1.50 per month for the cost of one pickled pig's foot) compared to the Nav using 888 gallons costing $1554 or $1465 if it uses mid-grade fuel (which is suggested). Not that big of a difference for those of us who drive big V8s. Now for you soggy turd drivers its another story.

[/quote]

That works out to be at least a 12% difference in fuel consumption. 12% is a big number. I would love my investments to return 12%. The price of oil would fall 50% if consumption declined by 10%. Then you would have cheaper oil prices and less incentive to conserve and consumption would increase again. Taxing fuel is the way to go to keep consumption down.

[deesolballs]

Where are those figures coming from Vimy? "The price of fuel would drop buy 50% if consumption declined by 10%." That is interesting and I would like to read about it.

12% more gallons consumed compared to a 12% increase in your investments is apples to oranges. My point was if I wanted an SUV and my con was spending $100 dollars more per year in gas I woulnd't be dissuaded by such a small amount of money.

[AZhitman]

Dees, what can I say? Classic.

p.s. Only reason I didn't respond in typical fashion was I was across the street at SIZZLER stuffing my fat yap. AND, I did a big, fat stinky burnout coming out of the parking lot - wasted at least $15 in tire tread (not to mention the $1.59 gallon of fuel I dumped down Quella's greedy craw and the pollution I released into the atmosphere).

*HITMAN leans to the left as he's typing and contributes even more to Global Warming*

[VimyJ]

Where are those figures coming from Vimy? "The price of fuel would drop buy 50% if consumption declined by 10%." That is interesting and I would like to read about it.

12% more gallons consumed compared to a 12% increase in your investments is apples to oranges. My point was if I wanted an SUV and my con was spending $100 dollars more per year in gas I woulnd't be dissuaded by such a small amount of money.

Let's say conservatively that 10 million car and truck drivers spent $100 less on fuel per year. That's amounts to $1 billion less spent on gas per year or ~ 11.5 million gallons less gas consumed. See how the numbers start to add up? I'm also surprised that I haven't got more flack over the fuel tax mention. What's the matter with you conservatives? (That sounds like an oxymoron in the context of this thread )

[AZhitman]

Mike - Here's my VERY CONSERVATIVE take - That "plan" also leaves a s***-ton of people in low-paying service-oriented jobs (tanker driver, gas station attendants, gas station cashiers, many mechanics) unemployed and mooching off the government dole until they can find another job that suits their limited skills and motivation.

Nothing's resolved.

[VimyJ]

Mike - Here's my VERY CONSERVATIVE take - That "plan" also leaves a s***-ton of people in low-paying service-oriented jobs (tanker driver, gas station attendants, gas station cashiers, many mechanics) unemployed and mooching off the government dole until they can find another job that suits their limited skills and motivation.

Nothing's resolved.

Maybe the money not spent on gas would go into better roads? The money would get channeled into more useful things perhaps? Maybe they could spend the money they saved on cultural enlightenment lessons? Maybe he tanker drivers could get jobs building roads or an H2 infrastructure?

[deesolballs]

Let's say conservatively that 10 million car and truck drivers spent $100 less on fuel per year. That's amounts to $1 billion less spent on gas per year or ~ 11.5 million gallons less gas consumed. See how the numbers start to add up? I'm also surprised that I haven't got more flack over the fuel tax mention. What's the matter with you conservatives? (That sounds like an oxymoron in the context of this thread )

Take that same "formula" above and crunch in any other variable. My point is that we waste so much everywhere else that it seems folly to kick SUV owners in the balls.

HITMAN, I'm glad I don't have to smell your contribution to global warming you smelly scoundrel.

Vimy, if you feel so strongly trade in your J30 (styled after Oprah's arse by the way) and get a geo metro or something. I understand your point...

Let's put a higher tax on fast food to force poor fat basturds to lose weight. Less weight in an SUV would make them more efficient. And while we are at it raise taxes on toilet paper then people would only dump when they REALLY have to. Less sh!tting = less flushing = conservation.

We shouldn't assume that everyone who owns an SUV doesn't need an SUV. If I had a few more kids I'd buy one. Wait... that's it... a tax on deesolballs = less kids = fewer SUVs = less consumption. Deesolballs for President!!

[AZhitman]

Cultural enlightenment lessons? Puh-Leeeze! Now I'm REALLY gonna get conservative on you, Mike!:D

Any $$$ that is NOT spent on fuel CAN'T be "diverted" as it's not yours (the government's) to divert! It's the consumers' money. And unless you raise taxes, they're not gonna part with it. BTW, why build roads when in your scenario there will be less drivers ON the roads?

p.s. Typically, when you see an immediate increase in people's "disposable income", ($100/year in your example) you'll also see a concomitant increase in $$$ spent on cigarettes, liquor, gamb|ing, etc. Look no further than the spike generated by the tax credit of 2 (or was it 3) years ago. Basic Econ 101.

[MaineExport]

Interesting economic analysis Deesolb's!

[AZhitman]

BTW, speaking of SUV's:

I own a modified 90 Suburban. 10 mpg on a good day. Is in near-perfect condition, passes emissions, and hauls my 5-person crew (and 2 big-a$$ dogs) in style, safety and comfort. Consider this hastily-drafted summary and the environmental impact of the following:

1) Discarding said monstrosity and the energy "wasted" to convert it to recyclable materials AND the clean-up required to make the remains environmentally friendly...

2) Building a new replacement vehicle and considering the energy "wasted" to manufacture said replacement, not to mention the pollutants created during all phases of the manufacturing process.

Disregard the $350/month payment on a suitable replacement vehicle and the economic impact on my family - it makes more sense to take care of what I already own, fill its greedy 45-gallon fuel tank monthly, and spend my $$$ increasing my family's quality of life (and ensuring my children are well-prepared to make a positive impact on the world).

[VimyJ]

Cultural enlightenment lessons? Puh-Leeeze! Now I'm REALLY gonna get conservative on you, Mike!:D

Any $$$ that is NOT spent on fuel CAN'T be "diverted" as it's not yours (the government's) to divert! It's the consumers' money. And unless you raise taxes, they're not gonna part with it. BTW, why build roads when in your scenario there will be less drivers ON the roads?

p.s. Typically, when you see an immediate increase in people's "disposable income", ($100/year in your example) you'll also see a concomitant increase in $$$ spent on cigarettes, liquor, gamb|ing, etc. Look no further than the spike generated by the tax credit of 2 (or was it 3) years ago. Basic Econ 101.

Why couldn't I spend the $100 saved on something else? Maybe a few more steaks or some nicer Kentucky bourbon or California wines? Why would there be less drivers on the road because cars are more fuel efficient? Coupled with the millions of pounds less of carbon not being injected into the air sounds like a no lose scenario to me. Still get to were I need to go and have more money in my pocket when I get there for smokes and such.

[deesolballs]

Why couldn't I spend the $100 saved on something else? Maybe a few more steaks or some nicer Kentucky bourbon or California wines? Why would there be less drivers on the road because cars are more fuel efficient? Coupled with the millions of pounds less of carbon not being injected into the air sounds like a no lose scenario to me. Still get to were I need to go and have more money in my pocket when I get there for smokes and such.

A few more steaks would lead to high blood pressure, heart disease and colon cancer and the wine leads to alcoholism and spousal abuse. All of which is a burden on the economy.

The "Less drivers on the road" scenario came from you levying taxes on fuel. And the only "smokes and such" enjoyed at your household will be the cigar Uncle Sam lights up as he pulls up his star spangled boxers, buckles his pants and leaves you in the corner whimpering and humming "My Country Tis of Thee". :patriot

[AZhitman]

Vimy, Vimy, Vimy... Doing away with SUV's ISN'T going to mean $100 less per person is spent on fuel per year. It means making 2 trips with a smaller vehicle. It means hauling your boat/5th-wheel/travel trailer witha rental vehicle. It means moms will make weekly instead of bi-monthly trips to the grocery store. Lots of implications.

Don't get me started on the pollution issue - SUV's are NOT to blame. Try jet airplanes (one 747 releases more particulates into the atmosphere at take-off than 100 average vehicles do IN A YEAR). Try 18-wheelers. Try unregulated industries that don't comply with EPA standards. Anything but SUV's... You might as well say smokers are responsible for global warming (which doesn't exist, BTW).

I appreciate your proposed uses for $100, I'd make the same choices - Maybe a couple extra bottles of scotch and a few more cigars per year would make me less cranky....

[VimyJ]

"My Country Tis of Thee".

If I were humming "My Country Tis of Thee" how would you know I wasn't actually humming "God Save the Queen"? Who brought aircraft into this? But since you did, have you wondered why the airlines had been suffering for at least a year before 9/11? Could it be that the airlines were hugely affected by the step rise in oil prices that came about exactly 10 years to the day of the end of the Gulf War? Would fuel ineffiency be the reason that Boeing is investing billions in a new 20% more efficient design?

Hey, let's face it: no matter what, life leads to death.

As far as taxes are concerned, if people drove more fuel efficient cars and the taxes were raised to the level that would keep the out of pocket cost the same, where do you get the notion that there would be less people driving? It would cost the same right?

There are certainly good uses for SUVs. Living off a logging road would be a good use and so would hauling a boat. I wonder though, how many SUVs are sold that have never been off roading or will ever haul a boat. How many are bought to keep up with the Jones' in the name of crass materialism? How many SUVs are bought to pick up the dry cleaning? Picking up the dry cleaning in a 3.5 ton truck. Only in America.

Ironic that the most bellicose conservatives are the ones mostly in favour of sending the most money to OPEC. Living proof that one can't have his cake and eat it too, though, through circular logic they will try to convince themselves otherwise. And, BTW, drilling in Alaska isn't going to change much of the energy equation. I'm not too much against it because there isn't much oil there and the human presence would be neglible in geological terms.

I like the idea of reducing the weight of SUVs by creating more lean drivers. Why not send all the fatties to "gyms" that are actually generating stations were the exercise equipment is hooked up to dynamos. That stair climber could be generating some juice, baby!:D Who needs solar when we have the most fatties in the world? The US balance of payments deficit cured by fat asses and Iraq becomes irrelevant because there is less need for their oil and less money going into Saddam's coffers. Sweet.

[Mayhem_J30]

this gets my vote as the weirdest thread yet.

[VimyJ]

this gets my vote as the weirdest thread yet.

What?!?! You think the cat thread a while back was less weird? :Werd

[AZhitman]

Ironic that the most bellicose conservatives are the ones mostly in favour of sending the most money to OPEC. Living proof that one can't have his cake and eat it too, though, through circular logic they will try to convince themselves otherwise. And, BTW, drilling in Alaska isn't going to change much of the energy equation. I'm not too much against it because there isn't much oil there and the human presence would be neglible in geological terms.

I'll tell you why. Because we (bellicose conservatives) DON'T favor sending money to the OPEC states. What we WOULD favor, would be to take over the governments of those oil-producing countries by force and set up shop. Expand the Union by 5 or 6 states and assimilate the natives - Hell, put 'em to work, educate 'em, whatever.

BUT NOOOO, we can't do that. Why? Because the same people crying about pollution, fuel economy, dependence on foreign oil, etc. are the same pacifist ninnies that oppose any military action anywhere in the world, justified or otherwise!!!

Where was all this whining about 3-ton vehicles back in 1958, when the average family car weighed MORE than a new Suburban and was THE SAME LENGTH!!!!

I do, however, like your idea about fat people generating power - At 6'2", 185 I'll get a reprieve!!:D

[deesolballs]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by VimyJ "]If I were humming "My Country Tis of Thee" how would you know I wasn't actually humming "God Save the Queen"?

You were humming "My Country Tis of Thee" because that is you and Uncle Sam's mood music.

Hey, let's face it: no matter what, life leads to death.

This is true whether one's arse graces a J30 or a Suburban.

As far as taxes are concerned, if people drove more fuel efficient cars and the taxes were raised to the level that would keep the out of pocket cost the same, where do you get the notion that there would be less people driving? It would cost the same right?

A+B never = C in econ. Taxes go up and disposable income goes down. Spending slows and the economy lags. The poor schmucks who are poor already and driving yugos, metros and 240s will then be restroing banana seat schwinns.

FrEaK: "Anyone know where I can find one of those cool fans for my handle bars? And what brand of styrofoam cup do you guys use in your spokes? "

Dauntless: "You damned ricer. Replace your handle bar basket before you do any mods. I can get you a good price on one by the way. And use playing cards, they last longer."

[VimyJ]

I'll tell you why. Because we (bellicose conservatives) DON'T favor sending money to the OPEC states. What we WOULD favor, would be to take over the governments of those oil-producing countries by force and set up shop. Expand the Union by 5 or 6 states and assimilate the natives - Hell, put 'em to work, educate 'em, whatever.

BUT NOOOO, we can't do that. Why? Because the same people crying about pollution, fuel economy, dependence on foreign oil, etc. are the same pacifist ninnies that oppose any military action anywhere in the world, justified or otherwise!!!

Where was all this whining about 3-ton vehicles back in 1958, when the average family car weighed MORE than a new Suburban and was THE SAME LENGTH!!!!

I do, however, like your idea about fat people generating power - At 6'2", 185 I'll get a reprieve!!:D

AHA!!! The cat is out of the bag! Conservatives are lurking under the guise of being xenophobic isolationists are actually hegemonic imperialists who want war so they can pick up their dry cleaning cheaper.:toilet

[deesolballs]

AHA!!! The cat is out of the bag! Conservatives are lurking under the guise of being xenophobic isolationists are actually hegemonic imperialists who want war so they can pick up their dry cleaning cheaper.:toilet

Dry cleaning? I rinse my wife beater in the sink and hang it out on the line like every other red blooded American!!:D

[VimyJ]

Originally posted by VimyJ

Hey, let's face it: no matter what, life leads to death.

This is true whether one's arse graces a J30 or a Suburban.

[

Actually, I read somewhere that the J30 has the lowest accident fatality rate of any car ever produced. Strange but true.

Q45tech: you'd be better off replacing the tires becuae that's where 99% of your suspension comes from. I keep my summer tires in a bag in the upstairs freezer. And as for the seat padding, that's pretty much shot after 6 years so you better replace the seat before you think of adding that reflector kit. Defective chain guards lead to serious pant damage and while you're there you might as well replace your pedal bearings. And as for chain oil....This is a helpful site http://www.wheeliesforidiots.com

[Get240DiZzY]

Just my 2 cents...

It doesn't matter to me if we have SUV's on the roads or not, just as long as they serve some purpouse, to tow a boat or for offroading. I'll probobly purchase an SUV somday, like a 4Runner or an Xterra, nothing as big as a Suburban though, to go offroading in, and to give me access across the sandbar to my island cottage (brag brag brag). If there is a soccer mom using a Suburban just to pick up her only daughter from soccer practice, and as VimyJ so aptly put it, pick up their dry cleaning, then I believe their bodies should never be found. Not only for a waste of gas and resources, but because chances are they don't realize how big they are, and will cause accidents, as many previous posts on this board have indicated.

Again, just my 2 cents.

[AZhitman]

It doesn't matter to me if we have SUV's on the roads or not, just as long as they serve some purpouse, to tow a boat or for offroading.

"...just as long as they serve some purpose..." WTF??? And what if they don't? What are YOU gonna do? So now your approval is required before I can drive my Suburban (ALONE) up to the 7-11 to get a Slurpee from Hakeem? What next? Is my Q too big too? What country do you live in?

That's like me saying, you can have a big-a$$ shift light on your monster tach - as long as you're a racecar driver. You can have an aluminum wing - as long as you can do 200+. You can purchase racing tires, as long as you're heading to/from an autocross. You can have an Apex-i decal as long as you have a whatever the hell it is those ricemongers make.

Point is this: SUV's don't cause accidents, dumba$$ drivers/distractions/poorly-maintained vehicles cause accidents. It's been well-established OVER and OVER. Matter of fact, as a trained accident investigator, I have NEVER seen an accident directly CAUSED by the size of a vehicle.

And if you're afraid you're gonna get run over by one, then buy a bigger car - Because after all, using your logic: You shouldn't own a sports car (not that a 240 is one) unless you're actively participating in a competitive driving event.

This is fun!:D

[AZhitman]

If there is a soccer mom using a Suburban just to pick up her only daughter from soccer practice, and as VimyJ so aptly put it, pick up their dry cleaning, then I believe their bodies should never be found.

Again I say, WTF??? How about the single working mom who drives a handed-down Suburban that was given to her? What about the kid that drives an Econoline to work at Pizza Hut 'cause he bought it cheap at an auction? Finally, what about the family (LIKE MINE) that has 2 cars - And my wife wants to "pick up the dry cleaning" in it all by herself... You're advocating violence against such people? Un-Freakin-believable.

p.s. Did I mention that this is fun?:D

[VimyJ]

Point is this: SUV's don't cause accidents, dumba$$ drivers/distractions/poorly-maintained vehicles cause accidents. It's been well-established OVER and OVER. Matter of fact, as a trained accident investigator, I have NEVER seen an accident directly CAUSED by the size of a vehicle.

You have to admit that an SUV operated by a poor driver is much more likely to roll than a car. Higher center of gravity. I wouldn't trust my wife in an SUV. She thinks that she is a good driver but I shudder to think of what would happen if she put a wheel off the road and then overcorrected. Then there is the strange phenomenom in northern climes where you see SUV's in the ditch at a rate of 10-1 to cars. The 4 wheel drive makes them think they can do anything but they forget that it takes longer to stop because of their greater weight and their greater mass keeps them going straight on icy curves.

[AZhitman]

Absolutely agreed. 100%.

When we bought our 'Burb, both my wife and I took turns practicing evasive maneuvers and re-establishing travel after "dropping a wheel" off the edge of the roadway. The ABS got quite a workout, and we probably shaved 3 years off the life of the truck. But at least we have a healthy respect for what it can (AND CAN NOT) do.

You're also very right about the 4wd part - It makes the vehicle no safer, really, and can be a liability if relied upon - Although people get AWD and 4WD severely confused in this area... I choose to blame Subaru for planting this misconception in the heads of the 75% of car/truck buyers who are idiots.

I was on a roll, Vimy - don't start making me agree with you now!!! (j/k):D

[blink0r]

Irrelevant. But i still hate SUV's.

They're slow, bulky, bad on gas, have horrible handing, horrible breaking, and are generally very poor in crash test rating.

What more do you want?