Cant wait to see faces of SUV drivers...

Page 5 of 8  
tee hee hheeeee heeee haaaa haaaaaa blllrrrpp...heee hee haaa... I can't wait to hit you with my SUV's (2) 1 heaver than the other (4800lbs,5200lbs)
and watch you, maybe I say maybe crawling from the wreckage..tee hee hheeeee heeee haaaa haaaaaa blllrrrpp...heee hee haaa.
"Essb" <Billy Lincoln> wrote in message

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I had to add my two cents to this thread.
I have a problem with SUV owners. Not you people that have owned the same one for over 10 years, not you people that use it to haul your boat to the lake, not you people to carry your tools to the job site, not you people that have a plow on the front, etc, etc, etc. It's the people that own them just to "keep up with the Jones'". For instance, I know a person that purchased a 2005 Yukon XL for his daughter, so she could drive to and from school, that's not right.
Just to let you know what side of the fence I'm on, I own a 1995 Monte Carlo 3.4L V6, a 1992 Honda Accord 2.2L L4, and a 1994 Chevrolet C3500 Dually 7.4L V8 that currently weighs in at 8000lbs empty and gets 350km to 120L of fuel.
Steve
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

through traffic and as you say keep up with the Jones's looks gay.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Essb wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mackie
You got them " Big Dually " decals on the back fenders?
: - )
Harryface ؿ 1991 Pontiac Bonneville LE 300,545 miles
000,006 - Feb 4,1991 100,000 - Sept. 4, 1995 200,000 - June 19, 2001 1/4 Milllion - Jan 16, 2003 300,000 - March 3, 2005
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Big Dually" decals?
Mackie
You got them " Big Dually " decals on the back fenders?
: - )
Harryface ؿ 1991 Pontiac Bonneville LE 300,545 miles
000,006 - Feb 4,1991 100,000 - Sept. 4, 1995 200,000 - June 19, 2001 1/4 Milllion - Jan 16, 2003 300,000 - March 3, 2005
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mackie,
In the Late 70's the four wheel trucks had decals on the rear fender bulge's and maybe the tailgate that said " Big Dually".
Harryface ؿ 1991 Pontiac Bonneville LE 300,604 miles
000,006 - Feb 4,1991 100,000 - Sept. 4, 1995 200,000 - June 19, 2001 1/4 Milllion - Jan 16, 2003 300,000 - March 3, 2005
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
LOL, wish I could see a picture....I'll try google...
Mackie,
In the Late 70's the four wheel trucks had decals on the rear fender bulge's and maybe the tailgate that said " Big Dually".
Harryface ؿ 1991 Pontiac Bonneville LE 300,604 miles
000,006 - Feb 4,1991 100,000 - Sept. 4, 1995 200,000 - June 19, 2001 1/4 Milllion - Jan 16, 2003 300,000 - March 3, 2005
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 11:32:48 -0500, "Steve Mackie"

I think what's more important is the 3" tailpipe ;-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I got that, put a Flowmaster 70 series muffler on a few months ago. ;)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
What do you think is not 'right' about buyers buying the vehicles they can afford to buy and operate with their own money? Seems you should have more of a problem with people that get a tax credit to by a hybrid or a tax deduction to produce Ethanol. They are making a profit and buying the car they want with some of YOUR money. People that can not even afford to buy a car of their own are helping them. Now that what's not right.
mike hunt
Steve Mackie wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 13:48:50 -0500, snipped-for-privacy@mailcity.com wrote:

Don't forget all the medical dollars that are spent on the drivers and passengers of smaller cars when they get into accidents.
I've always wondered why they'd never show safety statistics for vehicles, only "classes of vehicles" Does a 5 star subcompact = a 5 star full sized?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
No way, it is lucky to come close to a four star large vehicle. You can't defy the laws of physics of mass, time and distance within the crumple zones
mike hunt
Some ga wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Hey Steve, guess what? I don't care what problem you with have with SUV owners. I own a 2004 Tahoe and don't haul a boat or power tools. The last time I checked, however, this is America and I can spend my hard earned money on any vehicle I damn well please. I didn't get a SUV to "keep up with the Jones", I got it because I liked it best out of all the vehicles available.
The high gas prices aren't due to SUV owners, its due to OPEC, yet many people still do not get that for some reason (or don't want to get it).
Adam
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Uhm, OPEC doesn't set prices, the market does...and what the options traders are willing to bid for the product. All OPEC they can do is influence inventory by reducing supply. When inventory is short...prices go up. When inventory is a glut, prices go down. Supply and demand. So *WE* DO control the other side of the equation...the demand side. Both sides influence prices. Back in the 1970's, consumption dropped off so quickly that OPEC learned a lesson...don't force inventory shortages or you loose demand and then BOTH the price drops AND you move less oil. They lost a lot of year-over-year revenue at the time because of it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
James C. Reeves wrote:

ERGO, OPEC sets oil prices. Think about it James.
So *WE* DO control

Theory is a wonderful thing James, because you can twist it to your liking. The reality however is that we have only a miniscule influence on demand. Try to get even 5% of the population to leave their cars in the driveway tomorrow. It can't be done. Ergo, for all intents and purposes, OPEC sets oil prices. That is the U.S. reality whether we want to face it or not.
Back in the 1970's, consumption dropped off so quickly that OPEC

sector that used significantly less oil year-over-year. Please support with links to factual data. I didn't think you could. ;-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ah! James, I'm in your picture now. You are, of course, referring to the deeeep recession we found ourselves in during the '70's. A recession is hardly a viable way to show that we can "control" the demand for oil. But without a severe recession or worse, depression, we cannot realistically effectively reduce demand.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

AT $6.00 Per gallon you might be surprised how quickly demand comes down.
However Setting minimum fuel economy standards for any vehicle that could be used as a personal transportation device might be a better approach.
Look at it this way in the 1970's Ford's most fuel efficient vehicle was the Pinto. In 1997 Ford's Least efficient vehicle was the Lincoln Town car (which oddly enough, by that time got better fuel economy than the Pinto). Detroit can do wonderful things with cars given the right motivation.
'course the easiest approach would be to harvest the methane that's lying about this continent and convert our vehicles to run on that. Bye Bye OPEC, end of Middle East Terrorism
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Interesting point. NG is still being burned off a the refineries because the environuts will not allow new distribution lines to be build to distribute the stuff and they will not allow the facilities to be build that could convert it to menthol for use in the gasoline pumped from those same refineries. Instead the government, at the behest of the environuts, forces them to buy more expense subsidized ethanol, because it is renewable. If we could only get rid of half of the stupid environmental laws, which do nothing to improve the environment we, could increase our domestic supplies by more than enough to control the price of crud within the US. Anwar is a start that is ten year off, unfortunately.
By the way given the proper goals the market and the manufactures can do the job. They do not need mandates. The mandates of the seventies actually set back fuel economy ten years by not giving them time to develop the newer technology while still building the older models. Deadlines forced them to spend billions converting factories to the more expensive FWD construction and patching in unproved technology instead of develop the technology in sue today. What we ended up with was less efficient, smaller, less safe vehicles or ten years. You are correct the new microprocessor control cars are cleaner and far more efficient. I happen to still own a 1971 Pinto, as well as a 2005 Lincoln LS V8 and a 2005 V8 Mustang GT convertible. The EPA on the 4cy 2.L 4 sp manual tranny Pinto is 23 MPG. The Lincoln LS is 27 MPG and the GT with 300 HP is 24 MPH, both of which are 5 sp automatics ;)
mike hunt
Some ga wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I believe I said they influence inventory (and thus influence)prices...but it's only part of the overall equasion. That concept is a far cry from "setting prices".

It isn't theory. It's been demonstrated. Surplus is less than 1% of demand. A fraction of a percent change in demand has a significant impact on inventory.

This is all common information reported widely at the time as people moved into more fuel efficient vehicles and people put solar panels on the roof of their homes for heating hot water for domestic and space hearing purposes (about 20% of the houses on my neighborhood at that time heat all or part of their water with solar panels). Wind and solar power generation came into being as well as geothermal power plants. Pole turned their thermostats down to 68% (saving 6%-9% in home heating fuel consumption. Stores and offices removed half of their lighting bulbs. ADDITIONALLY OPEC lost energy market share to alternative energy sources because their product was priced out of the market and it made the other sources economically viable. This is all history. The demand dropped out of the oil market fairly suddenly and fairly drastically coincident with the price. SO they were left selling LESS oil year over year at a lower cost. The suddenly cost for oil got so cheap that even the US oil exploration was nearly wiped out because the cost one could get for a barrel of oil then was less than the cost to extract it. Wild price swings are bad for everyone in the long term...no exception! Market price stability is what works for everyone...a lesson learned long, long ago.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.