Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#1771
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Bill Funk" <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:2qjdpvc5nhqe71r1ej43rg7fhruhu7unlk@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 13:46:12 -0400, "Joe" <me@privacy.net
> (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>
> >"I even put a lower gear set in the rear end two years ago and it still
> >passes w/ flying colors."
> >Not to digress from this shitty thread but why would the lower gear set
in
> >the rear end affect the emissions inspection?
>
> A lower gear ratio (a higher numerical ratio) will make the drive
> wheels turn less per engine revolution.
> Thus, fewer miles traveled per gallon used.
> Thus, more pullution in grams per mile travelled.
>
> This ignores that the engine may be running at an RPM that produces
> less pollution per mile.
Didn't think of that, I've heard engines run cleaner at certain RPM ranges,
but it never really got through the brainpan.
#1772
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
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.
But the discussion was about larger vehicles -- like older station
wagons and (true) full size sedans. None of these are practical for
more than nominally 5 people and in reality 4 people.
> 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.
I grew up in the snowbelt off Lake Erie and have probably logged as much
time driving a 2wd car in in snow as anybody. Dropping into 4wd makes a
trip that was a pain into one that's easy. And, at the margin, there
are plenty of times when it can be the difference between going and not
going somewhere.
> 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.
Given the chronically weak economy of the area, this may not be due to
their preferences.
> 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.
But the discussion was about larger vehicles -- like older station
wagons and (true) full size sedans. None of these are practical for
more than nominally 5 people and in reality 4 people.
> 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.
I grew up in the snowbelt off Lake Erie and have probably logged as much
time driving a 2wd car in in snow as anybody. Dropping into 4wd makes a
trip that was a pain into one that's easy. And, at the margin, there
are plenty of times when it can be the difference between going and not
going somewhere.
> 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.
Given the chronically weak economy of the area, this may not be due to
their preferences.
#1773
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
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.
But the discussion was about larger vehicles -- like older station
wagons and (true) full size sedans. None of these are practical for
more than nominally 5 people and in reality 4 people.
> 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.
I grew up in the snowbelt off Lake Erie and have probably logged as much
time driving a 2wd car in in snow as anybody. Dropping into 4wd makes a
trip that was a pain into one that's easy. And, at the margin, there
are plenty of times when it can be the difference between going and not
going somewhere.
> 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.
Given the chronically weak economy of the area, this may not be due to
their preferences.
> 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.
But the discussion was about larger vehicles -- like older station
wagons and (true) full size sedans. None of these are practical for
more than nominally 5 people and in reality 4 people.
> 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.
I grew up in the snowbelt off Lake Erie and have probably logged as much
time driving a 2wd car in in snow as anybody. Dropping into 4wd makes a
trip that was a pain into one that's easy. And, at the margin, there
are plenty of times when it can be the difference between going and not
going somewhere.
> 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.
Given the chronically weak economy of the area, this may not be due to
their preferences.
#1774
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
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.
But the discussion was about larger vehicles -- like older station
wagons and (true) full size sedans. None of these are practical for
more than nominally 5 people and in reality 4 people.
> 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.
I grew up in the snowbelt off Lake Erie and have probably logged as much
time driving a 2wd car in in snow as anybody. Dropping into 4wd makes a
trip that was a pain into one that's easy. And, at the margin, there
are plenty of times when it can be the difference between going and not
going somewhere.
> 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.
Given the chronically weak economy of the area, this may not be due to
their preferences.
> 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.
But the discussion was about larger vehicles -- like older station
wagons and (true) full size sedans. None of these are practical for
more than nominally 5 people and in reality 4 people.
> 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.
I grew up in the snowbelt off Lake Erie and have probably logged as much
time driving a 2wd car in in snow as anybody. Dropping into 4wd makes a
trip that was a pain into one that's easy. And, at the margin, there
are plenty of times when it can be the difference between going and not
going somewhere.
> 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.
Given the chronically weak economy of the area, this may not be due to
their preferences.
#1775
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote:
> RJ wrote:
>
> > Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Remember the days when you could buy a wagon and expect to haul plywood
> >>and tow a trailer with it?
> >
> >
> > 1. No 4x4 (a factor wherever it snows)
> > 2. Those old beasts delivered around 12 mpg.
> >
> > If you claim that point 2 is negated by modern technology, everything
> > I've seen with seriously higher gas mileage is front wheel drive and is
> > therefore worthless as a towing vehicle.
>
> That's not the fault of "passenger cars" per se, it's the fault of CAFE
> which has killed the full sized car as we once knew it.
I agree.
> I don't particularly feel that 4x4 is a requirement (see previous post)
Your personal preferences and what will sell cars may be different. I
think having lots of 4x4 choices that aren't SUVs could shift the sales
toward more cars. In the case of people who tow things, the 4x4
guarantees rear wheel drive, which is a towing necessity.
> RJ wrote:
>
> > Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Remember the days when you could buy a wagon and expect to haul plywood
> >>and tow a trailer with it?
> >
> >
> > 1. No 4x4 (a factor wherever it snows)
> > 2. Those old beasts delivered around 12 mpg.
> >
> > If you claim that point 2 is negated by modern technology, everything
> > I've seen with seriously higher gas mileage is front wheel drive and is
> > therefore worthless as a towing vehicle.
>
> That's not the fault of "passenger cars" per se, it's the fault of CAFE
> which has killed the full sized car as we once knew it.
I agree.
> I don't particularly feel that 4x4 is a requirement (see previous post)
Your personal preferences and what will sell cars may be different. I
think having lots of 4x4 choices that aren't SUVs could shift the sales
toward more cars. In the case of people who tow things, the 4x4
guarantees rear wheel drive, which is a towing necessity.
#1776
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote:
> RJ wrote:
>
> > Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Remember the days when you could buy a wagon and expect to haul plywood
> >>and tow a trailer with it?
> >
> >
> > 1. No 4x4 (a factor wherever it snows)
> > 2. Those old beasts delivered around 12 mpg.
> >
> > If you claim that point 2 is negated by modern technology, everything
> > I've seen with seriously higher gas mileage is front wheel drive and is
> > therefore worthless as a towing vehicle.
>
> That's not the fault of "passenger cars" per se, it's the fault of CAFE
> which has killed the full sized car as we once knew it.
I agree.
> I don't particularly feel that 4x4 is a requirement (see previous post)
Your personal preferences and what will sell cars may be different. I
think having lots of 4x4 choices that aren't SUVs could shift the sales
toward more cars. In the case of people who tow things, the 4x4
guarantees rear wheel drive, which is a towing necessity.
> RJ wrote:
>
> > Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Remember the days when you could buy a wagon and expect to haul plywood
> >>and tow a trailer with it?
> >
> >
> > 1. No 4x4 (a factor wherever it snows)
> > 2. Those old beasts delivered around 12 mpg.
> >
> > If you claim that point 2 is negated by modern technology, everything
> > I've seen with seriously higher gas mileage is front wheel drive and is
> > therefore worthless as a towing vehicle.
>
> That's not the fault of "passenger cars" per se, it's the fault of CAFE
> which has killed the full sized car as we once knew it.
I agree.
> I don't particularly feel that 4x4 is a requirement (see previous post)
Your personal preferences and what will sell cars may be different. I
think having lots of 4x4 choices that aren't SUVs could shift the sales
toward more cars. In the case of people who tow things, the 4x4
guarantees rear wheel drive, which is a towing necessity.
#1777
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote:
> RJ wrote:
>
> > Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Remember the days when you could buy a wagon and expect to haul plywood
> >>and tow a trailer with it?
> >
> >
> > 1. No 4x4 (a factor wherever it snows)
> > 2. Those old beasts delivered around 12 mpg.
> >
> > If you claim that point 2 is negated by modern technology, everything
> > I've seen with seriously higher gas mileage is front wheel drive and is
> > therefore worthless as a towing vehicle.
>
> That's not the fault of "passenger cars" per se, it's the fault of CAFE
> which has killed the full sized car as we once knew it.
I agree.
> I don't particularly feel that 4x4 is a requirement (see previous post)
Your personal preferences and what will sell cars may be different. I
think having lots of 4x4 choices that aren't SUVs could shift the sales
toward more cars. In the case of people who tow things, the 4x4
guarantees rear wheel drive, which is a towing necessity.
> RJ wrote:
>
> > Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Remember the days when you could buy a wagon and expect to haul plywood
> >>and tow a trailer with it?
> >
> >
> > 1. No 4x4 (a factor wherever it snows)
> > 2. Those old beasts delivered around 12 mpg.
> >
> > If you claim that point 2 is negated by modern technology, everything
> > I've seen with seriously higher gas mileage is front wheel drive and is
> > therefore worthless as a towing vehicle.
>
> That's not the fault of "passenger cars" per se, it's the fault of CAFE
> which has killed the full sized car as we once knew it.
I agree.
> I don't particularly feel that 4x4 is a requirement (see previous post)
Your personal preferences and what will sell cars may be different. I
think having lots of 4x4 choices that aren't SUVs could shift the sales
toward more cars. In the case of people who tow things, the 4x4
guarantees rear wheel drive, which is a towing necessity.
#1778
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
>
> > I don't particularly feel that 4x4 is a requirement (see previous post)
>
> Your personal preferences and what will sell cars may be different. I
> think having lots of 4x4 choices that aren't SUVs could shift the sales
> toward more cars. In the case of people who tow things, the 4x4
> guarantees rear wheel drive, which is a towing necessity.
You're failing to mention that many drivers in the U.S. have a necessity for
4X4 or AWD that has nothing to do with towing or even off-road driving. I
personally think it's a good idea for each family to have at least one
vehicle with all four wheels driven if they live in an area with REAL
winters. It doesn't have to be a truck or SUV, except that in the U.S.,
that would limit your choices to high-end luxury cars or smallish Subarus.
In other words, for families, you're pretty much stuck with an SUV. Damn
CAFE to hell. -Dave
> > I don't particularly feel that 4x4 is a requirement (see previous post)
>
> Your personal preferences and what will sell cars may be different. I
> think having lots of 4x4 choices that aren't SUVs could shift the sales
> toward more cars. In the case of people who tow things, the 4x4
> guarantees rear wheel drive, which is a towing necessity.
You're failing to mention that many drivers in the U.S. have a necessity for
4X4 or AWD that has nothing to do with towing or even off-road driving. I
personally think it's a good idea for each family to have at least one
vehicle with all four wheels driven if they live in an area with REAL
winters. It doesn't have to be a truck or SUV, except that in the U.S.,
that would limit your choices to high-end luxury cars or smallish Subarus.
In other words, for families, you're pretty much stuck with an SUV. Damn
CAFE to hell. -Dave
#1779
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
>
> > I don't particularly feel that 4x4 is a requirement (see previous post)
>
> Your personal preferences and what will sell cars may be different. I
> think having lots of 4x4 choices that aren't SUVs could shift the sales
> toward more cars. In the case of people who tow things, the 4x4
> guarantees rear wheel drive, which is a towing necessity.
You're failing to mention that many drivers in the U.S. have a necessity for
4X4 or AWD that has nothing to do with towing or even off-road driving. I
personally think it's a good idea for each family to have at least one
vehicle with all four wheels driven if they live in an area with REAL
winters. It doesn't have to be a truck or SUV, except that in the U.S.,
that would limit your choices to high-end luxury cars or smallish Subarus.
In other words, for families, you're pretty much stuck with an SUV. Damn
CAFE to hell. -Dave
> > I don't particularly feel that 4x4 is a requirement (see previous post)
>
> Your personal preferences and what will sell cars may be different. I
> think having lots of 4x4 choices that aren't SUVs could shift the sales
> toward more cars. In the case of people who tow things, the 4x4
> guarantees rear wheel drive, which is a towing necessity.
You're failing to mention that many drivers in the U.S. have a necessity for
4X4 or AWD that has nothing to do with towing or even off-road driving. I
personally think it's a good idea for each family to have at least one
vehicle with all four wheels driven if they live in an area with REAL
winters. It doesn't have to be a truck or SUV, except that in the U.S.,
that would limit your choices to high-end luxury cars or smallish Subarus.
In other words, for families, you're pretty much stuck with an SUV. Damn
CAFE to hell. -Dave
#1780
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
>
> > I don't particularly feel that 4x4 is a requirement (see previous post)
>
> Your personal preferences and what will sell cars may be different. I
> think having lots of 4x4 choices that aren't SUVs could shift the sales
> toward more cars. In the case of people who tow things, the 4x4
> guarantees rear wheel drive, which is a towing necessity.
You're failing to mention that many drivers in the U.S. have a necessity for
4X4 or AWD that has nothing to do with towing or even off-road driving. I
personally think it's a good idea for each family to have at least one
vehicle with all four wheels driven if they live in an area with REAL
winters. It doesn't have to be a truck or SUV, except that in the U.S.,
that would limit your choices to high-end luxury cars or smallish Subarus.
In other words, for families, you're pretty much stuck with an SUV. Damn
CAFE to hell. -Dave
> > I don't particularly feel that 4x4 is a requirement (see previous post)
>
> Your personal preferences and what will sell cars may be different. I
> think having lots of 4x4 choices that aren't SUVs could shift the sales
> toward more cars. In the case of people who tow things, the 4x4
> guarantees rear wheel drive, which is a towing necessity.
You're failing to mention that many drivers in the U.S. have a necessity for
4X4 or AWD that has nothing to do with towing or even off-road driving. I
personally think it's a good idea for each family to have at least one
vehicle with all four wheels driven if they live in an area with REAL
winters. It doesn't have to be a truck or SUV, except that in the U.S.,
that would limit your choices to high-end luxury cars or smallish Subarus.
In other words, for families, you're pretty much stuck with an SUV. Damn
CAFE to hell. -Dave