Natalie
- posted
16 years ago
Natalie
I don't see a car. Just an SUV.
However, why would that be bad for the undercarriage, assuming the driver stays away from railroad tracks?
Jeff
This is funny, coming from the lady who publicized the love affair between her tires and numerous curbs. :-)
| >
| > That *can't* be good for his car. | >
| > Natalie | | | This is funny, coming from the lady who publicized the love affair between | her tires and numerous curbs. :-) | | HEY! I didn't damage my tires! They were just worn out.
That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.
Natalie
| > That *can't* be good for his car. | >
| > Natalie | | I don't see a car. Just an SUV.
Which is classified as a car by many sources, smart guy. | | However, why would that be bad for the undercarriage, assuming the | driver stays away from railroad tracks? | | | Jeff
A good few potholes - and we have plenty of them around here, certainly puts a hurting on that thing. Wear and tear aside, that doesn't even *look* right.
Natalie
Not if it's done correctly
"Jeff Strickland" ... | >
| > "JoeSpareBedroom" ... | > | "Wickeddoll" ... | > | >
| > | >
| > | > That *can't* be good for his car. | > | >
| > | > Natalie | > | | > | | > | This is funny, coming from the lady who publicized the love affair | > between | > | her tires and numerous curbs. :-) | > | | > | | > HEY! I didn't damage my tires! They were just worn out. | >
| > That's my story, and I'm sticking to it. | >
| > Natalie | | | | The goal is to have the sidewalls outlast the tread ... | | | | They did! They were pretty bald.
Natalie
Big deal. GMC is a truck brand, not a car brand.
Yet, if you look at the clearance, the clearance appears to be the same on my car, more or less. I doubt the potholes would hurt the vehicle.
Granted, it looks stupid. But, it's not my truck. If I buy a truck and want it to look stupid, that would be my right.
Jeff
I think it looks pretty good.
How many times do you suppose this thing will be going off-road? ;)
LOL!
Cathy
"Jeff Strickland" ... | | "Robert Watson" ... | > Wickeddoll wrote: | >> | >
| >> | > That *can't* be good for his car. | >> | >
| >> | > Natalie | >> | | >> | I don't see a car. Just an SUV. | >>
| >> Which is classified as a car by many sources, smart guy. | >
| > Big deal. GMC is a truck brand, not a car brand. | >
| | You are losing sight of the bigger picture, the bottom of the damn thing is | scraping the ground. It doesn't matter that Natalie called it a car and you | want to call it a truck. Well, it seems to matter to you, but I'm sure it | doesn't matter to anybody else ...
I think he sees me as slamming GM, but that really isn't it. I'd say the same thing if it had been a Rav-4, or some other Toyota SUV. Apples and pears, but some people like to sneer. I still say that's too damned low for a vehicle of that weight/shape. | | One problem you have here is that Natalie has been here a very long time and | we like her, you are new and we don't like you already.
Awwww, thanks.
:-)
Natalie
I'd rather get rear-ended by a lowered truck than a raised one, any day.
Me thinks they may be illegal aliens....
No, asshole. It's fixed. Rims nicely buffed.
Now, see if you can stop obsessing, and find something constructive to add.
I see you as slamming the person who lowered the truck in the first place.
I think the truck looks stupid, too. But I didn't waste my money on it. I even saw a Rolls Royce (I think the from the 60s) turned into a 4x4 (jacked it up high and all). I thought that was pretty silly too.
It's someone else's money. They're free to do stupid stuff with it, if they want.
Jeff
Its hard to tell exactly, but I'd say there's still about 6" of clearance. I'd say that what the owner has done is put wide very low profile tires that in effect lower the vehicle. Of course this means the engine revs go up for a given speed compared to the original tires.
Then there's how the tires stick outside the fenders and chuck all the road dirt at the side paint ...
Aren't there regulations that say tires have to be within the fender or fender extension on road vehicles?
SD
In most areas of the U.S., there are regulations that prohibit the tire tread from extending beyond the fender or fender extension.
The owner may have also lowered the suspension. I don't know how hard it is to do.
However, it is like a poor-man's crossover? I mean, it is about the same height as a Ford Edge or whatever. Too bad you can't go over railroad tracks or pull onto some one's lawn without risking damage.
These sort of regulations vary by state.
Unless the vehicles I see running around MI, PA and NJ are illegal, the regulations in these states don't cover how far out the tires go. Fortunately, there aren't ugliness laws, either, or I would have to get a new car. ;-)
Jeff
"Jeff" ... | Wickeddoll wrote: | > "Jeff Strickland" ... | > | | > | "Robert Watson" ... | | > | >> | >
| > | >> | > That *can't* be good for his car. | > | >> | >
| > | >> | > Natalie | > | >> | | > | >> | I don't see a car. Just an SUV. | > | >>
| > | >> Which is classified as a car by many sources, smart guy. | > | >
| > | > Big deal. GMC is a truck brand, not a car brand. | > | >
| > | | > | You are losing sight of the bigger picture, the bottom of the damn thing | > is | > | scraping the ground. It doesn't matter that Natalie called it a car and | > you | > | want to call it a truck. Well, it seems to matter to you, but I'm sure it | > | doesn't matter to anybody else ... | >
| > I think he sees me as slamming GM, but that really isn't it. I'd say the | > same thing if it had been a Rav-4, or some other Toyota SUV. Apples and | > pears, but some people like to sneer. I still say that's too damned low for | > a vehicle of that weight/shape. | | I see you as slamming the person who lowered the truck in the first place. | | I think the truck looks stupid, too. But I didn't waste my money on it. | I even saw a Rolls Royce (I think the from the 60s) turned into a 4x4 | (jacked it up high and all). I thought that was pretty silly too.
All I wanted was opinions on the wisdom of doing this to a vehicle that clearly wasn't built for that. | | It's someone else's money. They're free to do stupid stuff with it, if | they want. | | Jeff
Well, duh.
Natalie | | > | | > | One problem you have here is that Natalie has been here a very long time | > and | > | we like her, you are new and we don't like you already. | >
| > Awwww, thanks. | >
| > :-) | >
| > Natalie | >
| >
"Stewart DIBBS" ... | | "Wickeddoll" ... | >
| >
| > That *can't* be good for his car. | | Its hard to tell exactly, but I'd say there's still about 6" of clearance. | I'd say that what the owner has done is put wide very low profile tires that | in effect lower the vehicle. Of course this means the engine revs go up for | a given speed compared to the original tires. |
Oh I knew it was for speed, aerodynamics, and he probably thinks it looks cool, which is his right, of course, but won't that damned thing spark at times?! They're doing a lot of road work in this area right now, and some of the bumps I've been hitting felt like they were going to wreck the bottom of my Echo.
| Then there's how the tires stick outside the fenders and chuck all the road | dirt at the side paint ...
I usually think that's cool. On a sports car. :-P It's like putting spinners on a 3 cylinder car. | | Aren't there regulations that say tires have to be within the fender or | fender extension on road vehicles? | | SD | | Dunno about NC, but there *should* be
Natalie
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.