Your suggestoin for a SUV

  • Thread starter Thread starter GoodLuck
  • Start date Start date
MDT said:
Nothing, you got it. You just said the SUV by desing is more likely to
roll over. AND I commented by saying a semi is more likely to
jacknife. ;-)
Click to expand...

Ok then, the SUV/semi truck comparison is still faulty until you put an
equal number of SUVs pulling trailers and semi-trucks on the road year
round and in all weather conditions. I'll put money on SUVs pulling
trailers having more jackknifes per million miles traveled because SUVs
are lighter, driven faster, and have less skilled drivers who are out to
have fun instead in their own rig vs. driving a company truck for a
living. >:^)
--

Philip

"If a long train of abuses, prevarications, and artifices, all tending
the same way, make the design visible to the people . tis not to be
wondered that they should then rouse themselves."
- John Locke (1632-1704)
 
Isn't it strange that the control freaks are now so concerned
about SUV's that seat up to eight, yet they said nothing when
the same truck chassis carried a body that only seated three with
a box behind the cab
Click to expand...

I would guess that the reason that "they said nothing" might have been that
pickup trucks were far less common then, compared to the numbers of ext cab
p/u and full sized SUV's on the road now. Automakers marketing (driven by
their profit margins) is a big cause of the proliferation of SUV's. They've
made them 'cool' and 'sexy'. Does anyone remeber how cool and sexy a 1984
Chevrolet Suburban was back then? Nil and none. They were few and far
between.

CAFE regulations have also played a large role by basically forcing domestic
auto makers to stop production of V* powered rear wheel drive large
vehicles. CAFE has a loophole for light trucks, which SUV's are classified
as. In reality, most SUVs are used as cars (daily transportation). Just
look around on the road.

I don't believe in gov;t regs on what we can buy. You buy your SUV and I'll
buy my 250 hp sedan.

CHEERS.


or the car based SUV's that now carry up to
 
There is no 'loop hole' in the CAFE regulation. The CAFE figure
for cars forced buyers into small less safe cars. There was no
suitable way to make trucks smaller and yet do the job they
needed to do, therefore the CAFE for trucks was set lower. The
fact that manufactures used those same chassis to transport eight
rather than four was a smart move. Many people NEED room for
more than four, particularly those with children. A benefit is
that fewer children over the past five years have been killed or
severally injured in large SUV than if they were be transported
in a smaller less safe autos. One can not beat the laws of
physics. I too drive high powered RWD V8 cars. I have no need
for an SUV, but I see no reason to deny those that do need them
to buy them.



mike hunt
 
There is no 'loop hole' in the CAFE regulation. The CAFE figure
for cars forced buyers into small less safe cars. There was no
suitable way to make trucks smaller and yet do the job they
needed to do, therefore the CAFE for trucks was set lower. The
fact that manufactures used those same chassis to transport eight
rather than four was a smart move.
Click to expand...

that's the loophole, dim bulb
 
Duh. Writing a regulation the permits something is not a
'loophole.' The two step CAFE regulation permitted lower
mileage for trucks than cars. The number of passengers a truck
can carry in not a 'loophole' either. Trucks were built at the
time the regulation was set that could carry up to six passengers
in crew cabs. When one side runs out of arguments to support
their point and must resort to name calling or vulgarities it
time to end the discourse. I'll waist no more time tying to
enlighten someone with a closed mind.


mike hunt
 
JohnDoe said:
that's the loophole, dim bulb
Click to expand...

Hey lookie here! Yet *another* reader finds "MikeHunt" to be a
prejudiced lackey. LOL
--

Philip

"If a long train of abuses, prevarications, and artifices, all tending
the same way, make the design visible to the people . tis not to be
wondered that they should then rouse themselves."
- John Locke (1632-1704)
 
That from a guy that has nothing to do but spend his life
in the NG's. Every time I drop into one of these NG's over these
many years the poor fellow is there, cross posting and commenting
on something of which he has little or no knowledge, so sad.


mike hunt
 
Hey kid, its not that they want to, its "that they can" and its also
none of your buisness what they do with something they paid for with
their own money. You are a minorty, SUV's are popular!
Click to expand...
Eat shit; 10 billion flies can't be wrong.

Robert Smith
 
MDT said:
Philip, it was by design, I was illustrating absurdity by being absurd.
The original socialist poster had mentioned how an SUV is more likely to
roll over.
Click to expand...

"socialist"? Funny, I don't recall anything regarding ownership of the
means of production in the previous post.
 
So was their cramming that rear third row seat behind the rear
wheel - right in the crumple zone. They stopped third row
seats in station wagons for this reason - but for SUVs - it'll
take a few thousand dead children before they get rid of it.
 
So was their cramming that rear third row seat behind the rear
wheel - right in the crumple zone. They stopped third row
seats in station wagons for this reason - but for SUVs - it'll
take a few thousand dead children before they get rid of it.
Click to expand...
I guess the sky really is falling chicken little, could you provide a
cite for the documentation of all these deaths that you are concerned
about. I'd even settle for a cite that highlights injuries of any
kind.
 
Hi,
So how many times in a week, do they carry 8 persons in a BIG SUV.
I only drag out big truck of mine when I need it. Other times I
drive small econo box. Some wondered if I was on welfare because I drive
econo box. Poor driving skills/bad road manner kills more people than
driving a small vehicle. Why SUVs roll over more? Because drivers don't
know what they're doing driving it. By design it has higher center of
gravity and it is heavier than car. Not only in driving, there are many who
don't know what they're doing. I see them at work place, I see them on
the road, I see them in class room, I see them every where.
Seems like Mr. Bush, your prez. does not know what he is doing.
(or talking)
Tony
 
JohnDoe said:
I guess the sky really is falling chicken little, could you provide a
cite for the documentation of all these deaths that you are concerned
about. I'd even settle for a cite that highlights injuries of any
kind.
Click to expand...

Currently they are not compiling such data, but it is only logical
that if you pur the third row/seats in the rear crumple zone, that
passengers in an accident are going to be in trouble.

The rear of the seat cushion on your SUV's back row should be
no farther back than the rear axle. I've seen some that even
place the rear seat 4-6 inches from the rear door/glass. That's
just asking to get hurt.
 
Your lucky, some folks with children can't afford more than
one vehicle ;)



mike hunt
 
The rear of the seat cushion on your SUV's back row should be
no farther back than the rear axle. I've seen some that even
place the rear seat 4-6 inches from the rear door/glass. That's
just asking to get hurt.
Click to expand...

have you ever looked at the configuration of most small cars, almost
all of them have their seat backs beyond the rear axle. I'll gran the
point about seat clearance from the rear but I don't believe that too
many SUVS are like that, I know that the expedition has almost 18
inches between the seat back and the rear plus another 6+ inches of
bumper give well over 2 feet of clearance. If an impact is so strong
that it would affect a passenger 2 feet from the rear, it would be bad
for the passenger no matter what vehicle was involved.
next strawman step forward
 
JohnDoe said:
have you ever looked at the configuration of most small cars, almost
all of them have their seat backs beyond the rear axle.
Click to expand...

This is false. You find me a "small car" that has seats *beyond* the rear
axle (the word "beyond" meaning the region between the rear axle and the
rear bumper). Go ahead, name a few that are not station wagons. The
trunk is not a seat.

--

Philip

"If a long train of abuses, prevarications, and artifices, all tending
the same way, make the design visible to the people . tis not to be
wondered that they should then rouse themselves."
- John Locke (1632-1704)
 
You mean like the back of a Civic or other small car? ;)
Click to expand...

The entire passenger area is encased within a safety cage in
an automobile. There's then 1-3 feet of trunk area as a crumple
zone. Now, compare that to a seat thrown into a SUV that's a
few inches from the rear door.

Of course, smart people who need to safely transport that many
people - they get a huge Surburban or simmilar truck.
 
The entire passenger area is encased within a safety cage in
an automobile. There's then 1-3 feet of trunk area as a crumple
zone. Now, compare that to a seat thrown into a SUV that's a
few inches from the rear door.
Click to expand...

you name an SUV with a rear seat a few inches from the rear door
 
You mean like the back of a Civic or other small car? ;)

Acutely
Click to expand...

Achulee, I thought it was more chronic than acute. ;)
NHTSA figures indecate the opposite. Fewer children are
being killed or severely injured over the past five year. The
reduction is attributed to the fact more of them are riding in
larger safer SUV's. You can't beat the laws of physics
Click to expand...

Of course not, Scottie, but perhaps warning people not to put kids in
front seats because a deploying air bag could kill them is a factor, as
well.
 
JohnDoe said:
have you ever looked at the configuration of most small cars, almost
all of them have their seat backs beyond the rear axle. I'll gran the
point about seat clearance from the rear but I don't believe that too
many SUVS are like that, I know that the expedition has almost 18
inches between the seat back and the rear plus another 6+ inches of
bumper give well over 2 feet of clearance. If an impact is so strong
that it would affect a passenger 2 feet from the rear, it would be bad
for the passenger no matter what vehicle was involved.
next strawman step forward
Click to expand...

An SUV simply needs to crash into an 18-wheeler or bus and the SUV folks
are in deep yogurt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top