Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#1661
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <1g37ft1.1df2fd3htdg0eN%re_johnson@hotmail.com>,
re_johnson@hotmail.com (RJ) wrote:
>Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote:
>
>> Every time I hear
>> someone bitch that they spend $(something large) for a SUV because they
>> wanted to be safe, I wonder why they didn't spend the same money for a
>> car that would be safer.
>
>Maybe because 'being safe' includes 4x4 capability for bad weather.
>
Which lots of cars and minivans offer.
re_johnson@hotmail.com (RJ) wrote:
>Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote:
>
>> Every time I hear
>> someone bitch that they spend $(something large) for a SUV because they
>> wanted to be safe, I wonder why they didn't spend the same money for a
>> car that would be safer.
>
>Maybe because 'being safe' includes 4x4 capability for bad weather.
>
Which lots of cars and minivans offer.
#1662
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <1g37ft1.1df2fd3htdg0eN%re_johnson@hotmail.com>,
re_johnson@hotmail.com (RJ) wrote:
>Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote:
>
>> Every time I hear
>> someone bitch that they spend $(something large) for a SUV because they
>> wanted to be safe, I wonder why they didn't spend the same money for a
>> car that would be safer.
>
>Maybe because 'being safe' includes 4x4 capability for bad weather.
>
Which lots of cars and minivans offer.
re_johnson@hotmail.com (RJ) wrote:
>Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote:
>
>> Every time I hear
>> someone bitch that they spend $(something large) for a SUV because they
>> wanted to be safe, I wonder why they didn't spend the same money for a
>> car that would be safer.
>
>Maybe because 'being safe' includes 4x4 capability for bad weather.
>
Which lots of cars and minivans offer.
#1663
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <1g37ft1.1df2fd3htdg0eN%re_johnson@hotmail.com>,
re_johnson@hotmail.com (RJ) wrote:
>Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote:
>
>> Every time I hear
>> someone bitch that they spend $(something large) for a SUV because they
>> wanted to be safe, I wonder why they didn't spend the same money for a
>> car that would be safer.
>
>Maybe because 'being safe' includes 4x4 capability for bad weather.
>
Which lots of cars and minivans offer.
re_johnson@hotmail.com (RJ) wrote:
>Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote:
>
>> Every time I hear
>> someone bitch that they spend $(something large) for a SUV because they
>> wanted to be safe, I wonder why they didn't spend the same money for a
>> car that would be safer.
>
>Maybe because 'being safe' includes 4x4 capability for bad weather.
>
Which lots of cars and minivans offer.
#1664
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <newscache$uej5nh$icv1$1@news.ipinc.net>,
"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote:
>
>"Aardwolf" <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote in message
>news:3F95F6A2.9F1F5262@itis.com...
>>
>>
>> I disagree--to an extent. As I've said before, people will buy what
>they're
>> told they want. If there were a lot of Magnum-type wagons and sedans that
>> actually had some real style and to them--AND available AWD, and more to
>the
>> point if there was actually advertising to explain to people how kick-***
>they
>> thought they were, I'll bet there would be a large shift away from
>suddently
>> stodgy, ill handling trucks. Sure a number of people would still buy
>trucks
>> to haul stuff around, and some might still want some for image--they
>always
>> have, even pre-Dukes of Hazzard, but Navigators and Envoys and Escalades?
>> They'd be gone.
>>
>
>You cannot substitute "styling" for interior leg and head room. You have to
>go
>back to the early 70's like a 73 T-Bird or a Old 98 before you can find a
>sedan that could actually fit 4 adults comfortably.
Dodge Intrepid, Chrysler Concorde -- plenty of room for 5 adults. Ditto Ford
Crown Vic, Mercury Grand Marquis, Lincoln Town Car, Cadillacl deVille, Buick
Park Avenue/LeSabre, Pontiac Bonneville, Toyota Avalon, Mercedes S-class, BMW
7-series, Jaguar XJ-series, Audi 8-series, Volvo 80-series, ...
>Sure, if automakers
>started
>producing such vehicles again, you might knock off a few SUVs that were
>bought to haul adults around, but the people that bought SUV's for real
>hauling aren't going to go to a wagon, and the people that bought them to
>haul
>families aren't going to go to a wagon either (although they would have
>been
>a lot smarter to have bought either a minivan or a full size van, IMHO)
>and the posers that bought them to pretend they are offroaders in the
>city aren't going to go to a sedan either.
>
>Where station wagons shine is if you have ONE driver that regularly
>has a need of hauling small to mid size delivery. For example the
>admin that needs to drive a computer across town, the wife that
>likes going to the rummage sales on the weekend, the janitor
>who has to haul cleaning supplies to a building, the construction
>foreman who goes to a couple job sites, and a smattering
>of service guys who don't need to carry ladders or large tools.
>
>Ted
>
>
"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote:
>
>"Aardwolf" <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote in message
>news:3F95F6A2.9F1F5262@itis.com...
>>
>>
>> I disagree--to an extent. As I've said before, people will buy what
>they're
>> told they want. If there were a lot of Magnum-type wagons and sedans that
>> actually had some real style and to them--AND available AWD, and more to
>the
>> point if there was actually advertising to explain to people how kick-***
>they
>> thought they were, I'll bet there would be a large shift away from
>suddently
>> stodgy, ill handling trucks. Sure a number of people would still buy
>trucks
>> to haul stuff around, and some might still want some for image--they
>always
>> have, even pre-Dukes of Hazzard, but Navigators and Envoys and Escalades?
>> They'd be gone.
>>
>
>You cannot substitute "styling" for interior leg and head room. You have to
>go
>back to the early 70's like a 73 T-Bird or a Old 98 before you can find a
>sedan that could actually fit 4 adults comfortably.
Dodge Intrepid, Chrysler Concorde -- plenty of room for 5 adults. Ditto Ford
Crown Vic, Mercury Grand Marquis, Lincoln Town Car, Cadillacl deVille, Buick
Park Avenue/LeSabre, Pontiac Bonneville, Toyota Avalon, Mercedes S-class, BMW
7-series, Jaguar XJ-series, Audi 8-series, Volvo 80-series, ...
>Sure, if automakers
>started
>producing such vehicles again, you might knock off a few SUVs that were
>bought to haul adults around, but the people that bought SUV's for real
>hauling aren't going to go to a wagon, and the people that bought them to
>haul
>families aren't going to go to a wagon either (although they would have
>been
>a lot smarter to have bought either a minivan or a full size van, IMHO)
>and the posers that bought them to pretend they are offroaders in the
>city aren't going to go to a sedan either.
>
>Where station wagons shine is if you have ONE driver that regularly
>has a need of hauling small to mid size delivery. For example the
>admin that needs to drive a computer across town, the wife that
>likes going to the rummage sales on the weekend, the janitor
>who has to haul cleaning supplies to a building, the construction
>foreman who goes to a couple job sites, and a smattering
>of service guys who don't need to carry ladders or large tools.
>
>Ted
>
>
#1665
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <newscache$uej5nh$icv1$1@news.ipinc.net>,
"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote:
>
>"Aardwolf" <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote in message
>news:3F95F6A2.9F1F5262@itis.com...
>>
>>
>> I disagree--to an extent. As I've said before, people will buy what
>they're
>> told they want. If there were a lot of Magnum-type wagons and sedans that
>> actually had some real style and to them--AND available AWD, and more to
>the
>> point if there was actually advertising to explain to people how kick-***
>they
>> thought they were, I'll bet there would be a large shift away from
>suddently
>> stodgy, ill handling trucks. Sure a number of people would still buy
>trucks
>> to haul stuff around, and some might still want some for image--they
>always
>> have, even pre-Dukes of Hazzard, but Navigators and Envoys and Escalades?
>> They'd be gone.
>>
>
>You cannot substitute "styling" for interior leg and head room. You have to
>go
>back to the early 70's like a 73 T-Bird or a Old 98 before you can find a
>sedan that could actually fit 4 adults comfortably.
Dodge Intrepid, Chrysler Concorde -- plenty of room for 5 adults. Ditto Ford
Crown Vic, Mercury Grand Marquis, Lincoln Town Car, Cadillacl deVille, Buick
Park Avenue/LeSabre, Pontiac Bonneville, Toyota Avalon, Mercedes S-class, BMW
7-series, Jaguar XJ-series, Audi 8-series, Volvo 80-series, ...
>Sure, if automakers
>started
>producing such vehicles again, you might knock off a few SUVs that were
>bought to haul adults around, but the people that bought SUV's for real
>hauling aren't going to go to a wagon, and the people that bought them to
>haul
>families aren't going to go to a wagon either (although they would have
>been
>a lot smarter to have bought either a minivan or a full size van, IMHO)
>and the posers that bought them to pretend they are offroaders in the
>city aren't going to go to a sedan either.
>
>Where station wagons shine is if you have ONE driver that regularly
>has a need of hauling small to mid size delivery. For example the
>admin that needs to drive a computer across town, the wife that
>likes going to the rummage sales on the weekend, the janitor
>who has to haul cleaning supplies to a building, the construction
>foreman who goes to a couple job sites, and a smattering
>of service guys who don't need to carry ladders or large tools.
>
>Ted
>
>
"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote:
>
>"Aardwolf" <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote in message
>news:3F95F6A2.9F1F5262@itis.com...
>>
>>
>> I disagree--to an extent. As I've said before, people will buy what
>they're
>> told they want. If there were a lot of Magnum-type wagons and sedans that
>> actually had some real style and to them--AND available AWD, and more to
>the
>> point if there was actually advertising to explain to people how kick-***
>they
>> thought they were, I'll bet there would be a large shift away from
>suddently
>> stodgy, ill handling trucks. Sure a number of people would still buy
>trucks
>> to haul stuff around, and some might still want some for image--they
>always
>> have, even pre-Dukes of Hazzard, but Navigators and Envoys and Escalades?
>> They'd be gone.
>>
>
>You cannot substitute "styling" for interior leg and head room. You have to
>go
>back to the early 70's like a 73 T-Bird or a Old 98 before you can find a
>sedan that could actually fit 4 adults comfortably.
Dodge Intrepid, Chrysler Concorde -- plenty of room for 5 adults. Ditto Ford
Crown Vic, Mercury Grand Marquis, Lincoln Town Car, Cadillacl deVille, Buick
Park Avenue/LeSabre, Pontiac Bonneville, Toyota Avalon, Mercedes S-class, BMW
7-series, Jaguar XJ-series, Audi 8-series, Volvo 80-series, ...
>Sure, if automakers
>started
>producing such vehicles again, you might knock off a few SUVs that were
>bought to haul adults around, but the people that bought SUV's for real
>hauling aren't going to go to a wagon, and the people that bought them to
>haul
>families aren't going to go to a wagon either (although they would have
>been
>a lot smarter to have bought either a minivan or a full size van, IMHO)
>and the posers that bought them to pretend they are offroaders in the
>city aren't going to go to a sedan either.
>
>Where station wagons shine is if you have ONE driver that regularly
>has a need of hauling small to mid size delivery. For example the
>admin that needs to drive a computer across town, the wife that
>likes going to the rummage sales on the weekend, the janitor
>who has to haul cleaning supplies to a building, the construction
>foreman who goes to a couple job sites, and a smattering
>of service guys who don't need to carry ladders or large tools.
>
>Ted
>
>
#1666
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <newscache$uej5nh$icv1$1@news.ipinc.net>,
"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote:
>
>"Aardwolf" <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote in message
>news:3F95F6A2.9F1F5262@itis.com...
>>
>>
>> I disagree--to an extent. As I've said before, people will buy what
>they're
>> told they want. If there were a lot of Magnum-type wagons and sedans that
>> actually had some real style and to them--AND available AWD, and more to
>the
>> point if there was actually advertising to explain to people how kick-***
>they
>> thought they were, I'll bet there would be a large shift away from
>suddently
>> stodgy, ill handling trucks. Sure a number of people would still buy
>trucks
>> to haul stuff around, and some might still want some for image--they
>always
>> have, even pre-Dukes of Hazzard, but Navigators and Envoys and Escalades?
>> They'd be gone.
>>
>
>You cannot substitute "styling" for interior leg and head room. You have to
>go
>back to the early 70's like a 73 T-Bird or a Old 98 before you can find a
>sedan that could actually fit 4 adults comfortably.
Dodge Intrepid, Chrysler Concorde -- plenty of room for 5 adults. Ditto Ford
Crown Vic, Mercury Grand Marquis, Lincoln Town Car, Cadillacl deVille, Buick
Park Avenue/LeSabre, Pontiac Bonneville, Toyota Avalon, Mercedes S-class, BMW
7-series, Jaguar XJ-series, Audi 8-series, Volvo 80-series, ...
>Sure, if automakers
>started
>producing such vehicles again, you might knock off a few SUVs that were
>bought to haul adults around, but the people that bought SUV's for real
>hauling aren't going to go to a wagon, and the people that bought them to
>haul
>families aren't going to go to a wagon either (although they would have
>been
>a lot smarter to have bought either a minivan or a full size van, IMHO)
>and the posers that bought them to pretend they are offroaders in the
>city aren't going to go to a sedan either.
>
>Where station wagons shine is if you have ONE driver that regularly
>has a need of hauling small to mid size delivery. For example the
>admin that needs to drive a computer across town, the wife that
>likes going to the rummage sales on the weekend, the janitor
>who has to haul cleaning supplies to a building, the construction
>foreman who goes to a couple job sites, and a smattering
>of service guys who don't need to carry ladders or large tools.
>
>Ted
>
>
"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote:
>
>"Aardwolf" <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote in message
>news:3F95F6A2.9F1F5262@itis.com...
>>
>>
>> I disagree--to an extent. As I've said before, people will buy what
>they're
>> told they want. If there were a lot of Magnum-type wagons and sedans that
>> actually had some real style and to them--AND available AWD, and more to
>the
>> point if there was actually advertising to explain to people how kick-***
>they
>> thought they were, I'll bet there would be a large shift away from
>suddently
>> stodgy, ill handling trucks. Sure a number of people would still buy
>trucks
>> to haul stuff around, and some might still want some for image--they
>always
>> have, even pre-Dukes of Hazzard, but Navigators and Envoys and Escalades?
>> They'd be gone.
>>
>
>You cannot substitute "styling" for interior leg and head room. You have to
>go
>back to the early 70's like a 73 T-Bird or a Old 98 before you can find a
>sedan that could actually fit 4 adults comfortably.
Dodge Intrepid, Chrysler Concorde -- plenty of room for 5 adults. Ditto Ford
Crown Vic, Mercury Grand Marquis, Lincoln Town Car, Cadillacl deVille, Buick
Park Avenue/LeSabre, Pontiac Bonneville, Toyota Avalon, Mercedes S-class, BMW
7-series, Jaguar XJ-series, Audi 8-series, Volvo 80-series, ...
>Sure, if automakers
>started
>producing such vehicles again, you might knock off a few SUVs that were
>bought to haul adults around, but the people that bought SUV's for real
>hauling aren't going to go to a wagon, and the people that bought them to
>haul
>families aren't going to go to a wagon either (although they would have
>been
>a lot smarter to have bought either a minivan or a full size van, IMHO)
>and the posers that bought them to pretend they are offroaders in the
>city aren't going to go to a sedan either.
>
>Where station wagons shine is if you have ONE driver that regularly
>has a need of hauling small to mid size delivery. For example the
>admin that needs to drive a computer across town, the wife that
>likes going to the rummage sales on the weekend, the janitor
>who has to haul cleaning supplies to a building, the construction
>foreman who goes to a couple job sites, and a smattering
>of service guys who don't need to carry ladders or large tools.
>
>Ted
>
>
#1667
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <UAslb.4$X14.22333@news.abs.net>,
Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote:
>RJ wrote:
>
>> Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Every time I hear
>>>someone bitch that they spend $(something large) for a SUV because they
>>>wanted to be safe, I wonder why they didn't spend the same money for a
>>>car that would be safer.
>>
>>
>> Maybe because 'being safe' includes 4x4 capability for bad weather.
>>
>
>Subaru, Audi, VW, Volvo all offer all wheel drive wagons with good
>safety ratings.
Ditto Mercedes and BMW. Also awd minivans -- Dodge, Chysler, and Toyota.
>Besides, I have lived in several areas where a
>significant amount of annual snowfall was a normal occurrance and never
>felt unsafe even in a regular FWD compact so long as I had good tires.
>
>
>It's probably telling that when working up in the UP I made the
>observation that the only people driving trucks and/or SUVs were either
>engineers testing same or else people towing snowmobile trailers. Most
>of the locals just drove cheap old econobeaters.
>
>nate
>
Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote:
>RJ wrote:
>
>> Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Every time I hear
>>>someone bitch that they spend $(something large) for a SUV because they
>>>wanted to be safe, I wonder why they didn't spend the same money for a
>>>car that would be safer.
>>
>>
>> Maybe because 'being safe' includes 4x4 capability for bad weather.
>>
>
>Subaru, Audi, VW, Volvo all offer all wheel drive wagons with good
>safety ratings.
Ditto Mercedes and BMW. Also awd minivans -- Dodge, Chysler, and Toyota.
>Besides, I have lived in several areas where a
>significant amount of annual snowfall was a normal occurrance and never
>felt unsafe even in a regular FWD compact so long as I had good tires.
>
>
>It's probably telling that when working up in the UP I made the
>observation that the only people driving trucks and/or SUVs were either
>engineers testing same or else people towing snowmobile trailers. Most
>of the locals just drove cheap old econobeaters.
>
>nate
>
#1668
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <UAslb.4$X14.22333@news.abs.net>,
Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote:
>RJ wrote:
>
>> Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Every time I hear
>>>someone bitch that they spend $(something large) for a SUV because they
>>>wanted to be safe, I wonder why they didn't spend the same money for a
>>>car that would be safer.
>>
>>
>> Maybe because 'being safe' includes 4x4 capability for bad weather.
>>
>
>Subaru, Audi, VW, Volvo all offer all wheel drive wagons with good
>safety ratings.
Ditto Mercedes and BMW. Also awd minivans -- Dodge, Chysler, and Toyota.
>Besides, I have lived in several areas where a
>significant amount of annual snowfall was a normal occurrance and never
>felt unsafe even in a regular FWD compact so long as I had good tires.
>
>
>It's probably telling that when working up in the UP I made the
>observation that the only people driving trucks and/or SUVs were either
>engineers testing same or else people towing snowmobile trailers. Most
>of the locals just drove cheap old econobeaters.
>
>nate
>
Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote:
>RJ wrote:
>
>> Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Every time I hear
>>>someone bitch that they spend $(something large) for a SUV because they
>>>wanted to be safe, I wonder why they didn't spend the same money for a
>>>car that would be safer.
>>
>>
>> Maybe because 'being safe' includes 4x4 capability for bad weather.
>>
>
>Subaru, Audi, VW, Volvo all offer all wheel drive wagons with good
>safety ratings.
Ditto Mercedes and BMW. Also awd minivans -- Dodge, Chysler, and Toyota.
>Besides, I have lived in several areas where a
>significant amount of annual snowfall was a normal occurrance and never
>felt unsafe even in a regular FWD compact so long as I had good tires.
>
>
>It's probably telling that when working up in the UP I made the
>observation that the only people driving trucks and/or SUVs were either
>engineers testing same or else people towing snowmobile trailers. Most
>of the locals just drove cheap old econobeaters.
>
>nate
>
#1669
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <UAslb.4$X14.22333@news.abs.net>,
Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote:
>RJ wrote:
>
>> Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Every time I hear
>>>someone bitch that they spend $(something large) for a SUV because they
>>>wanted to be safe, I wonder why they didn't spend the same money for a
>>>car that would be safer.
>>
>>
>> Maybe because 'being safe' includes 4x4 capability for bad weather.
>>
>
>Subaru, Audi, VW, Volvo all offer all wheel drive wagons with good
>safety ratings.
Ditto Mercedes and BMW. Also awd minivans -- Dodge, Chysler, and Toyota.
>Besides, I have lived in several areas where a
>significant amount of annual snowfall was a normal occurrance and never
>felt unsafe even in a regular FWD compact so long as I had good tires.
>
>
>It's probably telling that when working up in the UP I made the
>observation that the only people driving trucks and/or SUVs were either
>engineers testing same or else people towing snowmobile trailers. Most
>of the locals just drove cheap old econobeaters.
>
>nate
>
Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote:
>RJ wrote:
>
>> Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Every time I hear
>>>someone bitch that they spend $(something large) for a SUV because they
>>>wanted to be safe, I wonder why they didn't spend the same money for a
>>>car that would be safer.
>>
>>
>> Maybe because 'being safe' includes 4x4 capability for bad weather.
>>
>
>Subaru, Audi, VW, Volvo all offer all wheel drive wagons with good
>safety ratings.
Ditto Mercedes and BMW. Also awd minivans -- Dodge, Chysler, and Toyota.
>Besides, I have lived in several areas where a
>significant amount of annual snowfall was a normal occurrance and never
>felt unsafe even in a regular FWD compact so long as I had good tires.
>
>
>It's probably telling that when working up in the UP I made the
>observation that the only people driving trucks and/or SUVs were either
>engineers testing same or else people towing snowmobile trailers. Most
>of the locals just drove cheap old econobeaters.
>
>nate
>
#1670
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
But if the Monaro is an older design, won't the road-holding and general
feel be not as good as a more modern design? Straight-line performance
isn't everything.
Am surprised that a 2-litre car (your Nissan) only manages 130 km/h before
"complaining". I would expect 160 AT LEAST, even on a 4 km stretch.
DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"rnf2" <rnf2@waikato.ac.nz> wrote in message
news:3f9659d5@news.iconz.co.nz...
> The Commadore is a very nice car to drive, My mother, (A farmer) drives a
V6
> 3.8L '89 commadore sedan, It will go up steep hills without shifting down,
> and cruises in overdrive at 100Kmh (60Mph) at 2500 rpm.
> I've never actually put it through it's paces properly, most cars I drive
I
> take to a deserted flat stretch of road 4 or so Km long and floor them. my
> 2L nissan could do 130Kmh before complaining, and could head up the
highway
> comfortably in cruise control at 120. My Isuzu Bighorn 2.8 Diesel could
> manage 145Kmh and runs up the motorway at 140.
> I floored my mums commodore and passed 180 and still accellerating when I
> had to brake for a corner. so theres power to spare.
> The police use 3.8 holdens as chase cars and highway patrol, with an
> aftermarket ECU chip giving max speeds in the 250Kmh range.
>
> Think of what a 5.7L V6 could do. amd the monaro body is lighter than the
> '89 Commodores. more power, less weight, more tire grip (265/30R18 on the
> monaro, 195/70R15 on the Commadore.) adds up to a pretty damn potent
> vehicle.
>
> rhys
>
................................
feel be not as good as a more modern design? Straight-line performance
isn't everything.
Am surprised that a 2-litre car (your Nissan) only manages 130 km/h before
"complaining". I would expect 160 AT LEAST, even on a 4 km stretch.
DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"rnf2" <rnf2@waikato.ac.nz> wrote in message
news:3f9659d5@news.iconz.co.nz...
> The Commadore is a very nice car to drive, My mother, (A farmer) drives a
V6
> 3.8L '89 commadore sedan, It will go up steep hills without shifting down,
> and cruises in overdrive at 100Kmh (60Mph) at 2500 rpm.
> I've never actually put it through it's paces properly, most cars I drive
I
> take to a deserted flat stretch of road 4 or so Km long and floor them. my
> 2L nissan could do 130Kmh before complaining, and could head up the
highway
> comfortably in cruise control at 120. My Isuzu Bighorn 2.8 Diesel could
> manage 145Kmh and runs up the motorway at 140.
> I floored my mums commodore and passed 180 and still accellerating when I
> had to brake for a corner. so theres power to spare.
> The police use 3.8 holdens as chase cars and highway patrol, with an
> aftermarket ECU chip giving max speeds in the 250Kmh range.
>
> Think of what a 5.7L V6 could do. amd the monaro body is lighter than the
> '89 Commodores. more power, less weight, more tire grip (265/30R18 on the
> monaro, 195/70R15 on the Commadore.) adds up to a pretty damn potent
> vehicle.
>
> rhys
>
................................