I think that you bashed someone for giving their opinion, then you gave your opinion. All the rest is stupid. Sorry, but that's *my* opinion. What makes you think anyone in the US has to "justify" their purchase, especially to you? As for safety, I'd much rather buy something that makes me & mine safe, than buy something that makes other safe while sacrificing the safety of me & mine. Let the others make that decision for themselves. If they choose to sacrifice their own safety, that's their choice.
Really?? Kiddies worry about *cool*. I passed that phase about 40 years ago. Do you stop all SUV drivers to ask their reason for buying it? Or is it just an assumption, on your part?
As far as safety, you don't think they use "safety" to justify
And you know this, how? Must keep you pretty busy tracking all those SUV's to see where they go and what they do.
Bottom line, if it is safe in a collision, its not safe for the
I understand that *they* are addressing the bumper height issue with future SUV's. I wouldn't consider myself "safe" in a collision, in any vehicle, SUV or otherwise.
Hey, I'm no tree hugger or anything,
Well, thank you very much. I appreciate it.
But if you
The only one I see pulling the "safe" card, is you. You seem to think you know why we buy SUV's, without knowing anything about us or our situations.
not to mention sucking huge somes of gas
The only valid point you've made so far.
(driving the
Who are you to say what I or anyone else, needs?
I
I think you generalize and assume too much. According to your logic, because some people drive SUV's, that don't "need" them, (in your opinion), then
*all* SUV's should be banned. Perhaps you'd be more comfortable living in a communist country where you are only allowed to have what the government feels that you *need*, if that. I'm glad you weren't in charge back in the late '60's, early '70's when you could buy reasonably priced muscle cars. A lot of today's classic cars would never have been built.
I bought a station wagon in '93. I wanted it to have a frame under it. New station wagons with frames under them look just like an SUV. ;) (an S-10 blazer in this instance)
Wanted the Ford but while driving it, stopped to check the tire pressure... the "nice vehicle" handle like slippery shit.
The tires weren't low just felt like it! :( Didn't buy it.
My '75 F150 felt much the same until I got rid of the 5.5" wide
15" wheels and replaced them with 7" wide 16's in the early 80's.
Ford with their cheap-ass narrow factory wheels suck donkey dick.
Can I like my old '75 F150 and not like Ford Motor Company both at the same time? :)
+++++++++++++++Nope, not my logic, just making a statement and a point.
++++perhaps you missed the "this is America" part.
++++I love the old muscle cars. If people bought them when they were new like they do SUVs now, they wouldn't have been so "reasonably priced". Its why you get to pay 30 grand for a Explorer now, a base model at that. You don't think 30 grand is over-priced for a base model "truck"?. I guess there would be alot more classic cars around now if everybody bought one. Or maybe they would just be dime a dozen now, kinda making them classic like a Pinto.(LOL I saw a Pinto wagon the other day, very good condition )
Whats a muscle car lover like you doing driving a SUV for anyway? You should be driving something like a 70 Z28 Camaro or Shelby Mustang ;) ==============
I think there are plenty of people living in houses with more then 300 sf of living area per person. Shouldn't there be a law against that? It takes more energy and materials to built big houses for only one or two people to live in and it takes energy to heat and cool houses bigger then people NEED. So people who live in more then 300 sf of living area are supporting terrorists and driving up the price of fuel/energy.
There's a fundamental difference that you're obviously unaware of; houses are built with renewable resources and heated and cooled (at least in the PacNW) with hydroelectric or wood. Neither of these resources are affected by foreign intervention nor do they impact the economy to the degree that petroleum does. The economies of the world run on oil and to be gratuitously wasting it on single passenger gas guzzlers will likely have a real negative impact on the quality of your childrens lives. Just a thought.
================= Ok, what do you guys think of this? I saw a H2 hummer the other day...remember this is supposed to be the ultimate off road vehicle. This thing was slammed to the ground with 20inch wheels on it. It was lower than most sports cars. I just thought to myself, that idiot just ruined a perfectly good 4x4. Just plain stupid if you ask me......Oh and BTW, those new H2s are just another Tahoe, nothing like the original Hummer. That H2 is another example of overpriced crap for people to buy that have a need to be cool. :)
It's easy! Go to college, join the Air Force, take the proper training, and they will give you one! Well, they'll give it to the crew chief, and if you're real nice, he'll let you fly it.
Precisely. They have to make a judgment call as to what is necessary and what isn't. IMHO they got it wrong. If you don't agree, fine. Try telling that to the relatives of the dead.
It points out a specific vehicle/tire failure combination that was implicated in the fatalities. It does not say whether the Explorer is in 'general' safe or otherwise. It is specific. Saying it is 'safe in it's class' I will not deny, but I do contend that these fatalities were due to a unique set of circumstances; ONE of which was the explorer and NOT other vehicle types.
I have NEVER denied that the tires had a flaw. I mean NEVER. Because I argue that the explorer was contributory you seem to believe that I mean the tire was not at fault. Far from it. It takes a lot to make a vehicle fail, I have listed elsewhere in other threads eight factors that I have gleaned as pertinent to this issue, only ONE of which was the explorer, ONE of is the tire flaw, and so on.
Now you do seem to deny that the explorer has ANY type of weakness with regard to the rollovers that caused the fatalities in question.
No I do not own Firestone stock. Nor have I ever (unless my Mutual funds hold them without my explicit knowledge).
I DO own an explorer which my son drives. It is NOT a train wreck, It's not a road hazard. But the explorer WAS contributory to the accidents with the firestone tires (as well of course were the tires). The Venezuela memo from FORD says so. It's not something I MAKE UP as I go along. But something I observe from reading widespread reports of the accidents over the years, some of which include references to documents subpoenaed at the time.
I do not say these things as someone who 'likes' firestone nor one who 'likes' or 'dislikes' Ford. But I do have 4 fords on my driveway, some of which have Bridgstone tires, some have Michelin, some have Goodyear. (I used to have a car with Firesstone tires too, but I sold that vehicle; which BTW was a Ford).
I am impartial I believe. You wear rosy colored glasses.
Well I suppose it's what you're used to. I grew up in England. And believe me an Explorer is BIG to me (compared to a Taurus it's BIG). True, and excursion is Enormous. A Probe is a 'normal' sized vehicle to most Brits, with the requisite performance and handling they need on their narrow twisty roads.
Stricter standards in giving out licenses would be a start in that direction. I was amazed at how EASY it is to pass the US driving test. You basically drive around the block a few times, if that. No Parallel parking, emergency stops, three point turns etc. etc. The US license in comparison to the UK license is a license to kill.
You are simply rationalizing to excuse your own excess while damming other for theirs. If people who are using wood and hydro power did not waste it on larger houses then they need, that wood and hydro power could be used elsewhere to provide energy that would otherwise have to be supplied by oil. So it really makes no difference. ANYONE living in more then 300 sf per person is supporting terrorists the same as people who drive gas guzzlers are.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.