Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#791
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F92C1AC.EC3FA467@kinez.net>, bputney@kinez.net says...
>
>
> Chris Phillipo wrote:
> >
> > In article <3F92961C.811FA2C5@kinez.net>, bputney@kinez.net says...
> > >
> > >
> > > Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
> > > >...Political decisions seem to be more emotional
> > > > than rational. For example, the risk of dying from cancer is thousands
> > > > of times larger than the risk of dying in a --------- attack, but the
> > > > amounts of taxpayer's money being spent on these two issues seems to
> > > > be inversely proportional to the risk. But this is another story.
> > >
> > > However, if we stopped all progress with cancer and cancer cure
> > > research, we would not be overrun with cancer at orders of magnitude
> > > higher rates than we are today using the treatments that we currently
> > > possess; but if we stopped all anti-terrorism efforts, we would be
> > > quickly over-run and destroyed - guaranteed.
> > >
> >
> > That's one man's opinion.
>
> As is yours - mine is no less valid.
>
> > Seems to me that the more measures that are
> > taken against terrorists, the more they attack. Case in point: Israel.
>
> Opposite side case in point: U.S today. Another opposite side case in
> point: Hitler.
>
The US today enjoys the benefit of geography, that's the only
difference. If Mexico were Palestine or Afghanistan, the southern
states would be the battlefield of a 50 year war. Instead you have the
luxury of defending that boarder with a hand full of border patrol
guards in guess what? SUVs. By the way, the only one I see trying to
take over numerous other countries like Hitler did, is from Texas.
> One would have to be an idiot to think that the way to fight willful
> murderers is to do nothing so that you don't antagonize them. The way
> to get rid of murderers is to get rid of them - not let them continue to
> kill at will unencumbered. You don't try to reason with them or
> negotiate with them.
Show me how the numbers have decreased since the spending has increased.
> It seems ridiculous to have to state the obvious, but I guess with some
> people, it's necessary.
Again and again.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
>
>
> Chris Phillipo wrote:
> >
> > In article <3F92961C.811FA2C5@kinez.net>, bputney@kinez.net says...
> > >
> > >
> > > Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
> > > >...Political decisions seem to be more emotional
> > > > than rational. For example, the risk of dying from cancer is thousands
> > > > of times larger than the risk of dying in a --------- attack, but the
> > > > amounts of taxpayer's money being spent on these two issues seems to
> > > > be inversely proportional to the risk. But this is another story.
> > >
> > > However, if we stopped all progress with cancer and cancer cure
> > > research, we would not be overrun with cancer at orders of magnitude
> > > higher rates than we are today using the treatments that we currently
> > > possess; but if we stopped all anti-terrorism efforts, we would be
> > > quickly over-run and destroyed - guaranteed.
> > >
> >
> > That's one man's opinion.
>
> As is yours - mine is no less valid.
>
> > Seems to me that the more measures that are
> > taken against terrorists, the more they attack. Case in point: Israel.
>
> Opposite side case in point: U.S today. Another opposite side case in
> point: Hitler.
>
The US today enjoys the benefit of geography, that's the only
difference. If Mexico were Palestine or Afghanistan, the southern
states would be the battlefield of a 50 year war. Instead you have the
luxury of defending that boarder with a hand full of border patrol
guards in guess what? SUVs. By the way, the only one I see trying to
take over numerous other countries like Hitler did, is from Texas.
> One would have to be an idiot to think that the way to fight willful
> murderers is to do nothing so that you don't antagonize them. The way
> to get rid of murderers is to get rid of them - not let them continue to
> kill at will unencumbered. You don't try to reason with them or
> negotiate with them.
Show me how the numbers have decreased since the spending has increased.
> It seems ridiculous to have to state the obvious, but I guess with some
> people, it's necessary.
Again and again.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
#792
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F92C1AC.EC3FA467@kinez.net>, bputney@kinez.net says...
>
>
> Chris Phillipo wrote:
> >
> > In article <3F92961C.811FA2C5@kinez.net>, bputney@kinez.net says...
> > >
> > >
> > > Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
> > > >...Political decisions seem to be more emotional
> > > > than rational. For example, the risk of dying from cancer is thousands
> > > > of times larger than the risk of dying in a --------- attack, but the
> > > > amounts of taxpayer's money being spent on these two issues seems to
> > > > be inversely proportional to the risk. But this is another story.
> > >
> > > However, if we stopped all progress with cancer and cancer cure
> > > research, we would not be overrun with cancer at orders of magnitude
> > > higher rates than we are today using the treatments that we currently
> > > possess; but if we stopped all anti-terrorism efforts, we would be
> > > quickly over-run and destroyed - guaranteed.
> > >
> >
> > That's one man's opinion.
>
> As is yours - mine is no less valid.
>
> > Seems to me that the more measures that are
> > taken against terrorists, the more they attack. Case in point: Israel.
>
> Opposite side case in point: U.S today. Another opposite side case in
> point: Hitler.
>
The US today enjoys the benefit of geography, that's the only
difference. If Mexico were Palestine or Afghanistan, the southern
states would be the battlefield of a 50 year war. Instead you have the
luxury of defending that boarder with a hand full of border patrol
guards in guess what? SUVs. By the way, the only one I see trying to
take over numerous other countries like Hitler did, is from Texas.
> One would have to be an idiot to think that the way to fight willful
> murderers is to do nothing so that you don't antagonize them. The way
> to get rid of murderers is to get rid of them - not let them continue to
> kill at will unencumbered. You don't try to reason with them or
> negotiate with them.
Show me how the numbers have decreased since the spending has increased.
> It seems ridiculous to have to state the obvious, but I guess with some
> people, it's necessary.
Again and again.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
>
>
> Chris Phillipo wrote:
> >
> > In article <3F92961C.811FA2C5@kinez.net>, bputney@kinez.net says...
> > >
> > >
> > > Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
> > > >...Political decisions seem to be more emotional
> > > > than rational. For example, the risk of dying from cancer is thousands
> > > > of times larger than the risk of dying in a --------- attack, but the
> > > > amounts of taxpayer's money being spent on these two issues seems to
> > > > be inversely proportional to the risk. But this is another story.
> > >
> > > However, if we stopped all progress with cancer and cancer cure
> > > research, we would not be overrun with cancer at orders of magnitude
> > > higher rates than we are today using the treatments that we currently
> > > possess; but if we stopped all anti-terrorism efforts, we would be
> > > quickly over-run and destroyed - guaranteed.
> > >
> >
> > That's one man's opinion.
>
> As is yours - mine is no less valid.
>
> > Seems to me that the more measures that are
> > taken against terrorists, the more they attack. Case in point: Israel.
>
> Opposite side case in point: U.S today. Another opposite side case in
> point: Hitler.
>
The US today enjoys the benefit of geography, that's the only
difference. If Mexico were Palestine or Afghanistan, the southern
states would be the battlefield of a 50 year war. Instead you have the
luxury of defending that boarder with a hand full of border patrol
guards in guess what? SUVs. By the way, the only one I see trying to
take over numerous other countries like Hitler did, is from Texas.
> One would have to be an idiot to think that the way to fight willful
> murderers is to do nothing so that you don't antagonize them. The way
> to get rid of murderers is to get rid of them - not let them continue to
> kill at will unencumbered. You don't try to reason with them or
> negotiate with them.
Show me how the numbers have decreased since the spending has increased.
> It seems ridiculous to have to state the obvious, but I guess with some
> people, it's necessary.
Again and again.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
#793
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F92C1AC.EC3FA467@kinez.net>, bputney@kinez.net says...
>
>
> Chris Phillipo wrote:
> >
> > In article <3F92961C.811FA2C5@kinez.net>, bputney@kinez.net says...
> > >
> > >
> > > Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
> > > >...Political decisions seem to be more emotional
> > > > than rational. For example, the risk of dying from cancer is thousands
> > > > of times larger than the risk of dying in a --------- attack, but the
> > > > amounts of taxpayer's money being spent on these two issues seems to
> > > > be inversely proportional to the risk. But this is another story.
> > >
> > > However, if we stopped all progress with cancer and cancer cure
> > > research, we would not be overrun with cancer at orders of magnitude
> > > higher rates than we are today using the treatments that we currently
> > > possess; but if we stopped all anti-terrorism efforts, we would be
> > > quickly over-run and destroyed - guaranteed.
> > >
> >
> > That's one man's opinion.
>
> As is yours - mine is no less valid.
>
> > Seems to me that the more measures that are
> > taken against terrorists, the more they attack. Case in point: Israel.
>
> Opposite side case in point: U.S today. Another opposite side case in
> point: Hitler.
>
The US today enjoys the benefit of geography, that's the only
difference. If Mexico were Palestine or Afghanistan, the southern
states would be the battlefield of a 50 year war. Instead you have the
luxury of defending that boarder with a hand full of border patrol
guards in guess what? SUVs. By the way, the only one I see trying to
take over numerous other countries like Hitler did, is from Texas.
> One would have to be an idiot to think that the way to fight willful
> murderers is to do nothing so that you don't antagonize them. The way
> to get rid of murderers is to get rid of them - not let them continue to
> kill at will unencumbered. You don't try to reason with them or
> negotiate with them.
Show me how the numbers have decreased since the spending has increased.
> It seems ridiculous to have to state the obvious, but I guess with some
> people, it's necessary.
Again and again.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
>
>
> Chris Phillipo wrote:
> >
> > In article <3F92961C.811FA2C5@kinez.net>, bputney@kinez.net says...
> > >
> > >
> > > Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
> > > >...Political decisions seem to be more emotional
> > > > than rational. For example, the risk of dying from cancer is thousands
> > > > of times larger than the risk of dying in a --------- attack, but the
> > > > amounts of taxpayer's money being spent on these two issues seems to
> > > > be inversely proportional to the risk. But this is another story.
> > >
> > > However, if we stopped all progress with cancer and cancer cure
> > > research, we would not be overrun with cancer at orders of magnitude
> > > higher rates than we are today using the treatments that we currently
> > > possess; but if we stopped all anti-terrorism efforts, we would be
> > > quickly over-run and destroyed - guaranteed.
> > >
> >
> > That's one man's opinion.
>
> As is yours - mine is no less valid.
>
> > Seems to me that the more measures that are
> > taken against terrorists, the more they attack. Case in point: Israel.
>
> Opposite side case in point: U.S today. Another opposite side case in
> point: Hitler.
>
The US today enjoys the benefit of geography, that's the only
difference. If Mexico were Palestine or Afghanistan, the southern
states would be the battlefield of a 50 year war. Instead you have the
luxury of defending that boarder with a hand full of border patrol
guards in guess what? SUVs. By the way, the only one I see trying to
take over numerous other countries like Hitler did, is from Texas.
> One would have to be an idiot to think that the way to fight willful
> murderers is to do nothing so that you don't antagonize them. The way
> to get rid of murderers is to get rid of them - not let them continue to
> kill at will unencumbered. You don't try to reason with them or
> negotiate with them.
Show me how the numbers have decreased since the spending has increased.
> It seems ridiculous to have to state the obvious, but I guess with some
> people, it's necessary.
Again and again.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
#794
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F92C2E8.1080003@computer.org>, m.whiting@computer.org
says...
> Chris Phillipo wrote:
> > In article <5ac380ce.0310181518.67be59b4@posting.google.com >,
> > dianelos@tecapro.com says...
> >
> >>You may be right in many of your specifics, but I think that their
> >>detail confuses the basic question here. The NHTSA study is not based
> >>on arguments about physics, or even on crash tests. It is based or
> >>real world data: it is based on then number of people who have in fact
> >>died in SUVs as compared to the number of people who have died in
> >>passenger cars of comparable or even less weight.
> >>
> >
> >
> > I'll tell you who is wrong in their specifics. Am I the only one to
> > read the report that is being MIS-quoted?
> >
> > Driver Fatalities per Billion Vehicle Miles
> > Very small 4-door cars 11.56
> > Small 4-door cars 7.85
> > Mid-size 4-door cars 5.26
> > Large 4-door cars 3.30
> > Compact pickup trucks 6.82
> > Large (100-series) pickup trucks 4.07
> > Small 4-door SUVs 5.68
> > Mid-size 4-door SUVs 6.73
> > Large 4-door SUVs 6.79
> > Minivans 2.76
> >
> > The Four vehicle groups with the lowest fatality rates for their own
> > drivers were minivans (2.76), large cars (3.30), large SUVs (3.79), and
> > large (100-series) pickup trucks (4.07).
> >
> > Look who's on top.
>
> Another consideration is that these are averages across a class of
> vehicles and I'll bet a steak dinner that the ranges within a given
> class are quite large and likely much larger than the differences
> between the classes. What really matters is YOUR vehicle, not a class
> average in any event.
>
> Matt
>
>
Personally I don't think any of these statistics hold water anyway, but
I thought I should point out that even the quoted statistics didn't
support the argument of the people quoting them. That happens when you
press the send button without reading I guess.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
says...
> Chris Phillipo wrote:
> > In article <5ac380ce.0310181518.67be59b4@posting.google.com >,
> > dianelos@tecapro.com says...
> >
> >>You may be right in many of your specifics, but I think that their
> >>detail confuses the basic question here. The NHTSA study is not based
> >>on arguments about physics, or even on crash tests. It is based or
> >>real world data: it is based on then number of people who have in fact
> >>died in SUVs as compared to the number of people who have died in
> >>passenger cars of comparable or even less weight.
> >>
> >
> >
> > I'll tell you who is wrong in their specifics. Am I the only one to
> > read the report that is being MIS-quoted?
> >
> > Driver Fatalities per Billion Vehicle Miles
> > Very small 4-door cars 11.56
> > Small 4-door cars 7.85
> > Mid-size 4-door cars 5.26
> > Large 4-door cars 3.30
> > Compact pickup trucks 6.82
> > Large (100-series) pickup trucks 4.07
> > Small 4-door SUVs 5.68
> > Mid-size 4-door SUVs 6.73
> > Large 4-door SUVs 6.79
> > Minivans 2.76
> >
> > The Four vehicle groups with the lowest fatality rates for their own
> > drivers were minivans (2.76), large cars (3.30), large SUVs (3.79), and
> > large (100-series) pickup trucks (4.07).
> >
> > Look who's on top.
>
> Another consideration is that these are averages across a class of
> vehicles and I'll bet a steak dinner that the ranges within a given
> class are quite large and likely much larger than the differences
> between the classes. What really matters is YOUR vehicle, not a class
> average in any event.
>
> Matt
>
>
Personally I don't think any of these statistics hold water anyway, but
I thought I should point out that even the quoted statistics didn't
support the argument of the people quoting them. That happens when you
press the send button without reading I guess.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
#795
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F92C2E8.1080003@computer.org>, m.whiting@computer.org
says...
> Chris Phillipo wrote:
> > In article <5ac380ce.0310181518.67be59b4@posting.google.com >,
> > dianelos@tecapro.com says...
> >
> >>You may be right in many of your specifics, but I think that their
> >>detail confuses the basic question here. The NHTSA study is not based
> >>on arguments about physics, or even on crash tests. It is based or
> >>real world data: it is based on then number of people who have in fact
> >>died in SUVs as compared to the number of people who have died in
> >>passenger cars of comparable or even less weight.
> >>
> >
> >
> > I'll tell you who is wrong in their specifics. Am I the only one to
> > read the report that is being MIS-quoted?
> >
> > Driver Fatalities per Billion Vehicle Miles
> > Very small 4-door cars 11.56
> > Small 4-door cars 7.85
> > Mid-size 4-door cars 5.26
> > Large 4-door cars 3.30
> > Compact pickup trucks 6.82
> > Large (100-series) pickup trucks 4.07
> > Small 4-door SUVs 5.68
> > Mid-size 4-door SUVs 6.73
> > Large 4-door SUVs 6.79
> > Minivans 2.76
> >
> > The Four vehicle groups with the lowest fatality rates for their own
> > drivers were minivans (2.76), large cars (3.30), large SUVs (3.79), and
> > large (100-series) pickup trucks (4.07).
> >
> > Look who's on top.
>
> Another consideration is that these are averages across a class of
> vehicles and I'll bet a steak dinner that the ranges within a given
> class are quite large and likely much larger than the differences
> between the classes. What really matters is YOUR vehicle, not a class
> average in any event.
>
> Matt
>
>
Personally I don't think any of these statistics hold water anyway, but
I thought I should point out that even the quoted statistics didn't
support the argument of the people quoting them. That happens when you
press the send button without reading I guess.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
says...
> Chris Phillipo wrote:
> > In article <5ac380ce.0310181518.67be59b4@posting.google.com >,
> > dianelos@tecapro.com says...
> >
> >>You may be right in many of your specifics, but I think that their
> >>detail confuses the basic question here. The NHTSA study is not based
> >>on arguments about physics, or even on crash tests. It is based or
> >>real world data: it is based on then number of people who have in fact
> >>died in SUVs as compared to the number of people who have died in
> >>passenger cars of comparable or even less weight.
> >>
> >
> >
> > I'll tell you who is wrong in their specifics. Am I the only one to
> > read the report that is being MIS-quoted?
> >
> > Driver Fatalities per Billion Vehicle Miles
> > Very small 4-door cars 11.56
> > Small 4-door cars 7.85
> > Mid-size 4-door cars 5.26
> > Large 4-door cars 3.30
> > Compact pickup trucks 6.82
> > Large (100-series) pickup trucks 4.07
> > Small 4-door SUVs 5.68
> > Mid-size 4-door SUVs 6.73
> > Large 4-door SUVs 6.79
> > Minivans 2.76
> >
> > The Four vehicle groups with the lowest fatality rates for their own
> > drivers were minivans (2.76), large cars (3.30), large SUVs (3.79), and
> > large (100-series) pickup trucks (4.07).
> >
> > Look who's on top.
>
> Another consideration is that these are averages across a class of
> vehicles and I'll bet a steak dinner that the ranges within a given
> class are quite large and likely much larger than the differences
> between the classes. What really matters is YOUR vehicle, not a class
> average in any event.
>
> Matt
>
>
Personally I don't think any of these statistics hold water anyway, but
I thought I should point out that even the quoted statistics didn't
support the argument of the people quoting them. That happens when you
press the send button without reading I guess.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
#796
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F92C2E8.1080003@computer.org>, m.whiting@computer.org
says...
> Chris Phillipo wrote:
> > In article <5ac380ce.0310181518.67be59b4@posting.google.com >,
> > dianelos@tecapro.com says...
> >
> >>You may be right in many of your specifics, but I think that their
> >>detail confuses the basic question here. The NHTSA study is not based
> >>on arguments about physics, or even on crash tests. It is based or
> >>real world data: it is based on then number of people who have in fact
> >>died in SUVs as compared to the number of people who have died in
> >>passenger cars of comparable or even less weight.
> >>
> >
> >
> > I'll tell you who is wrong in their specifics. Am I the only one to
> > read the report that is being MIS-quoted?
> >
> > Driver Fatalities per Billion Vehicle Miles
> > Very small 4-door cars 11.56
> > Small 4-door cars 7.85
> > Mid-size 4-door cars 5.26
> > Large 4-door cars 3.30
> > Compact pickup trucks 6.82
> > Large (100-series) pickup trucks 4.07
> > Small 4-door SUVs 5.68
> > Mid-size 4-door SUVs 6.73
> > Large 4-door SUVs 6.79
> > Minivans 2.76
> >
> > The Four vehicle groups with the lowest fatality rates for their own
> > drivers were minivans (2.76), large cars (3.30), large SUVs (3.79), and
> > large (100-series) pickup trucks (4.07).
> >
> > Look who's on top.
>
> Another consideration is that these are averages across a class of
> vehicles and I'll bet a steak dinner that the ranges within a given
> class are quite large and likely much larger than the differences
> between the classes. What really matters is YOUR vehicle, not a class
> average in any event.
>
> Matt
>
>
Personally I don't think any of these statistics hold water anyway, but
I thought I should point out that even the quoted statistics didn't
support the argument of the people quoting them. That happens when you
press the send button without reading I guess.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
says...
> Chris Phillipo wrote:
> > In article <5ac380ce.0310181518.67be59b4@posting.google.com >,
> > dianelos@tecapro.com says...
> >
> >>You may be right in many of your specifics, but I think that their
> >>detail confuses the basic question here. The NHTSA study is not based
> >>on arguments about physics, or even on crash tests. It is based or
> >>real world data: it is based on then number of people who have in fact
> >>died in SUVs as compared to the number of people who have died in
> >>passenger cars of comparable or even less weight.
> >>
> >
> >
> > I'll tell you who is wrong in their specifics. Am I the only one to
> > read the report that is being MIS-quoted?
> >
> > Driver Fatalities per Billion Vehicle Miles
> > Very small 4-door cars 11.56
> > Small 4-door cars 7.85
> > Mid-size 4-door cars 5.26
> > Large 4-door cars 3.30
> > Compact pickup trucks 6.82
> > Large (100-series) pickup trucks 4.07
> > Small 4-door SUVs 5.68
> > Mid-size 4-door SUVs 6.73
> > Large 4-door SUVs 6.79
> > Minivans 2.76
> >
> > The Four vehicle groups with the lowest fatality rates for their own
> > drivers were minivans (2.76), large cars (3.30), large SUVs (3.79), and
> > large (100-series) pickup trucks (4.07).
> >
> > Look who's on top.
>
> Another consideration is that these are averages across a class of
> vehicles and I'll bet a steak dinner that the ranges within a given
> class are quite large and likely much larger than the differences
> between the classes. What really matters is YOUR vehicle, not a class
> average in any event.
>
> Matt
>
>
Personally I don't think any of these statistics hold water anyway, but
I thought I should point out that even the quoted statistics didn't
support the argument of the people quoting them. That happens when you
press the send button without reading I guess.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
#797
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lon Stowell <LonDot.Stowell@ComcastPeriod.Net> wrote:
> Go drive a *modern* SUV, say the new VW or Porsche one. Then try
> to keep up with a Turbo Cayenne with a typical sport sedan.
I've driven modern SUVs. Compare apples to apples. If you want to compare
a $60,000 truck designed to be sporty with a $15,000 car designed to be
economical, I'd hope that the truck priced at 4 times the cost and with a
stated sporty goal would be able to impress.
Now, compare the cheaper Boxter S with the Cayenne and get back to me.
Note that the Boxster is cheaper. Or, since you don't seem to care about
price in your comparisons, compare the 911 Turbo with the Cayenne Turbo.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
> Go drive a *modern* SUV, say the new VW or Porsche one. Then try
> to keep up with a Turbo Cayenne with a typical sport sedan.
I've driven modern SUVs. Compare apples to apples. If you want to compare
a $60,000 truck designed to be sporty with a $15,000 car designed to be
economical, I'd hope that the truck priced at 4 times the cost and with a
stated sporty goal would be able to impress.
Now, compare the cheaper Boxter S with the Cayenne and get back to me.
Note that the Boxster is cheaper. Or, since you don't seem to care about
price in your comparisons, compare the 911 Turbo with the Cayenne Turbo.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#798
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lon Stowell <LonDot.Stowell@ComcastPeriod.Net> wrote:
> Go drive a *modern* SUV, say the new VW or Porsche one. Then try
> to keep up with a Turbo Cayenne with a typical sport sedan.
I've driven modern SUVs. Compare apples to apples. If you want to compare
a $60,000 truck designed to be sporty with a $15,000 car designed to be
economical, I'd hope that the truck priced at 4 times the cost and with a
stated sporty goal would be able to impress.
Now, compare the cheaper Boxter S with the Cayenne and get back to me.
Note that the Boxster is cheaper. Or, since you don't seem to care about
price in your comparisons, compare the 911 Turbo with the Cayenne Turbo.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
> Go drive a *modern* SUV, say the new VW or Porsche one. Then try
> to keep up with a Turbo Cayenne with a typical sport sedan.
I've driven modern SUVs. Compare apples to apples. If you want to compare
a $60,000 truck designed to be sporty with a $15,000 car designed to be
economical, I'd hope that the truck priced at 4 times the cost and with a
stated sporty goal would be able to impress.
Now, compare the cheaper Boxter S with the Cayenne and get back to me.
Note that the Boxster is cheaper. Or, since you don't seem to care about
price in your comparisons, compare the 911 Turbo with the Cayenne Turbo.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#799
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lon Stowell <LonDot.Stowell@ComcastPeriod.Net> wrote:
> Go drive a *modern* SUV, say the new VW or Porsche one. Then try
> to keep up with a Turbo Cayenne with a typical sport sedan.
I've driven modern SUVs. Compare apples to apples. If you want to compare
a $60,000 truck designed to be sporty with a $15,000 car designed to be
economical, I'd hope that the truck priced at 4 times the cost and with a
stated sporty goal would be able to impress.
Now, compare the cheaper Boxter S with the Cayenne and get back to me.
Note that the Boxster is cheaper. Or, since you don't seem to care about
price in your comparisons, compare the 911 Turbo with the Cayenne Turbo.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
> Go drive a *modern* SUV, say the new VW or Porsche one. Then try
> to keep up with a Turbo Cayenne with a typical sport sedan.
I've driven modern SUVs. Compare apples to apples. If you want to compare
a $60,000 truck designed to be sporty with a $15,000 car designed to be
economical, I'd hope that the truck priced at 4 times the cost and with a
stated sporty goal would be able to impress.
Now, compare the cheaper Boxter S with the Cayenne and get back to me.
Note that the Boxster is cheaper. Or, since you don't seem to care about
price in your comparisons, compare the 911 Turbo with the Cayenne Turbo.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#800
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>In article <c4v1pvgldtt2aq8o1kmm6lqcu2qdip1ov4@4ax.com>,
>whineryy@yifan.net says...
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>
>> >If I remember right petey has one of those MB ones. I haven't driven
>> >one, but riding in one doesn't inspire the sort of confindence petey
>> >boasts about.
>>
>> I have driven one of the MB ones. I was unimpressed. It handles well for
>> a truck, but it is beat by most cars. The ML55 AMG that I drove would
>> actually beat a large number of cars, but certainly not those cars of a
>> similar price point.
>>
>Speaking of point, was there one in that post?
That trucks, even those like the ML55 AMG, still handle like trucks.
Next time I'll try to use smaller words so you can understand.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>In article <c4v1pvgldtt2aq8o1kmm6lqcu2qdip1ov4@4ax.com>,
>whineryy@yifan.net says...
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>
>> >If I remember right petey has one of those MB ones. I haven't driven
>> >one, but riding in one doesn't inspire the sort of confindence petey
>> >boasts about.
>>
>> I have driven one of the MB ones. I was unimpressed. It handles well for
>> a truck, but it is beat by most cars. The ML55 AMG that I drove would
>> actually beat a large number of cars, but certainly not those cars of a
>> similar price point.
>>
>Speaking of point, was there one in that post?
That trucks, even those like the ML55 AMG, still handle like trucks.
Next time I'll try to use smaller words so you can understand.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"