=============================You *think* I'm wrong? Look at all the SUVs on the highway next time your
out. It's usually 1 adult in there and sometimes 1 child with them. Why are
they driving that big, over-priced, gus guzzling truck? Because it's cool!
Thats why. As far as safety, you don't think they use "safety" to justify
wasting there money on that thing? Maybe they do think its safe, some
probably do I guess. What really cracks me up is all the 4x4 versions on the
highway that will never need it here in sunny CA, they will never leave the
asfault. Bottom line, if it is safe in a collision, its not safe for the
other car's occupants and visa versa. Hey, I'm no tree hugger or anything,
this is America and you can buy whatever you want when you want. But if you
are pulling the safe card to justify your purchase you are either fooling
yourself or full of it, not to mention sucking huge somes of gas(driving the
price up), taking up too much parking room, driving the price up on a truck
that some people would like to buy because they really need it......ect. I
understand that I am generalizing but I'm talking about a large percentage
out there I'm sure....What do you think?
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
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.
Oh, and thanks for using less gas. More for me.
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
I wouldn't consider myself "safe" in a collision, in any vehicle, SUV or
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.
Who are you to say what I or anyone else, needs?
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? :)
Alvin in AZ
+++++++++++++++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 ;)
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
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
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
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.
Re: U-Haul bans Ford Explorer
Group: alt.autos.ford Date: Thu, Jan 15, 2004, 9:37pm (EST-2) From:
ANYONE living in more then 300 sf per person is supporting terrorists
the same as people who drive gas guzzlers are.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
300sq ft per person? Are you nuts? How you going to fit a kitchen,
bathroom, bedroom & living room with furniture into 300 sq feet? Maybe
you like living in a shoe box but the rest of us don't.
"Save The Sync, Ban MOS"
Pogo, that lovable little possum, once said "I have seen the enemy and he is
us....". The truly sad thing is that, even if a lawsuit is warranted, it is
not the little guy that gets the gold..... that conniving little shark in
the Armani suit is sure to come out well ahead of the game.
Speculation on my part is that the vast majority of people hae absolutely no
clue about their autos..... this is borne of real world experience... As a
group, those that ascribe to this NG have an above average interest in their
cars. Most people are happy if they can remember which side the gas door is
on. Most people think that changing the oil occasionally is just as good as
changing the oil regularly. Most people think that if some object will fit
in the back, their car can handle the weight.
Me: When I was changing your oil, I noticed that your brake pads are getting
Cust.: You're lying.... my brakes were 'good' this morning......
Me: Your check engine light is on.... we'll have to address that first.
Cust.: It's been on for two years.... that's not part of the problem....
(That one may escape some people).
Me: What kind of car....
Cust.: It's white and it has four doors...... I think the motor is in the
I could keep on going..... Uhaul is well within their rights to say who gets
to rent and who doesn't. Whether it is good for Uhaul or not is up for
conjecture. Enacting a petiton may or may not bring results. I do know that
this litigation complex that the world is enveloping has me wondering if I
should lend a shovel or rake to my next door neighbour....... I would
certainly hate to be named a co-respondant in some suit where a digit was
injured or a back muscle pulled simply because I failed to give a three hour
familiarization seminar on the device in question.
furd exploders and their owners should be banned.
: U-Haul Forbids Rentals to Explorer Drivers
: Thu Jan 8, 6:27 AM ET Add Business - AP to My Yahoo!
: DETROIT - U-Haul is forbidding its stores from renting trailers to
: customers driving Ford Explorers, citing product liability lawsuits
: involving the popular sport utility vehicle, a newspaper reported.
: U-Haul International Inc., North America's largest trailer rental
: company with more than 17,000 outlets, implemented the policy Dec.
: 22, saying it can no longer afford to defend the lawsuits, The
: Detroit News reported in Thursday editions.
: "U-Haul has chosen not to rent behind this tow vehicle based on our
: history of excessive costs in defending lawsuits involving Ford
: Explorer towing combinations," the company told the newspaper, adding
: that the move is "not related to safety issues."
: Joanne Fried, a U-Haul spokeswoman, declined to disclose how much the
: Phoenix-based company has spent defending lawsuits involving
: "The decision is not based on one accident," she said. "It's based on
: several different lawsuits going on for several years."
: Ford Motor Co. spokesman Jon Harmon called U-Haul's decision
: "surprising and disappointing."
: "This is all about runaway litigation and trial lawyers forcing
: businesses to make unfortunate decisions for fear of lawsuits," he
: U-Haul was involved in a lawsuit that Bridgestone/Firestone settled
: out of court in September. It involved three college students who
: were injured when their Firestone-equipped Explorer overturned while
: pulling a U-Haul trailer.
: Bridgestone/Firestone is currently trying reach an agreement on a
: $149 million settlement of 30 class-action lawsuits because of
: defective tires.
: Although federal regulators have said there isn't enough evidence to
: show that the Explorer model contributed to the tire defects, many of
: the problem tires were equipped on Explorers.
: A bulletin issued to U-Haul dealers last month said the company's
: decision was "based on the negative perceptions of Ford Explorers ...
: we are separating ourselves from the negative public perception and
: its potential consequences."
: Ford has maintained the Explorer is safe. In 2002, the National
: Highway Traffic Safety Administration (news - web sites) traced
: Explorer tire failures and resulting rollovers to tire manufacturing
: Fried said the rental ban applies to all model years, even though the
: Explorer was redesigned in 2002, improving its rollover rating. It
: was voted "tow vehicle of the year" by Trailer Boats magazine the
: same year.
: Ford launched the Explorer 14 years ago and this month will deliver
: its 5 millionth unit.
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.