What gives? Within the past week or so, there have been no less than 3 stories about SUV's.
The first.....Eco-terrorist groups here in the good ol' USA have been fire bombing car dealerships and destroying new SUV's for sale.
The second....The commercials on some local radio and TV stations about "supporting terrorism" if you drive a SUV. Have you seen or heard about these? If you drive a SUV, by virtue of the fact that they use more gas, you're supporting terrorism, since we import XX% of oil from the mideast.
The third....the most absurd IMHO, the WWJD..."What Would Jesus Drive" ad campaign, implying that somehow, it is "anti-Christian" to drive a SUV.
Where does this crap come from? Who could possibly know what Jesus would drive? He was a carpenter...would he drive a pickup? He had 12 disciples....would he drive a bus or van? Amazing.
Regarding the "supporting terrorism" claim, where does this come from? If you drive a Geo Metro as a travelling salesman, you'll use more gas in a year than the average SUV owner. How about households that have 3 or 4 drivers? That household uses more gas. Are these individuals supporting terrorism? Amazing crap. Political correctness run wild.
Is it a far reach to think that soon, we "evil" antique car owners will be next on the PC agenda? Chuck
You forgot to mention poor traffic control system that lots of places have. for example, in Orlando there are no synchronized lights so you go from one red light to the next. Also we sit in longs line at toll booths. So that means our city /state is also supprting terrorism. :rant:
Yep, the enviro-whackos just gotta have a cause. If it's not the spotted owl it's this crap. Since some recent studies seem to suggest that their global warming and freon causes may be based on defective, skewed statistics, we move to yet another bunch of hokus pokus. I wish George W would hurry and get the pipeline started so they can have something they can all focus on instead of running off in these splinter groups with all these other crazy issues.
It's easy for people who don't have an SUV to ignore the current hoolala, but if they can legitimize this, can the old car hobby be far behind? I heard a local hugger in a resturant a year or so ago announce to the guys he was sitting with that all cars over 15 years old should be banned and destroyed, because the people who have them were either too poor to upgrade them to newer models unless they were forced to do so, or "the stupid old car hobbyist who doesn't give a poopie about the enviroment". Needless to say a fistfight almost errupted.
There's so much mindless buffoonery in the world that you have to duct tape you head together to keep it from exploding. Am I included in the supporting terrorist ranks since I just bought a GMC 2500HD pickup or is it just SUV's?
By the way Chuck, are you guys going racing at Cecil County this spring (want to see that big block run 12.5)
These groups use anything that draws attention to rally their causes. If it wasn't SUV's it have been something else. There is no logical connection between SUV and the enviroment save for the fact that SUV's used more gas than say a Volvo 4 Cylinder. And we a hobbist of older cars are already under attack from different groups both in Washington and California. They fully intend to remove our Corvettes from the road for good. :(
Yes, we're running at Cecil County in June again. It will be June 14. I'm not the events director this year. Gave it up. :)
I'm just amazed that nobody in the media challenges this SUV crap. Anybody with a modicum of common sense MUST be able to see the stupidity of these statements. Why is it continuously repeated? I don't care if you're a liberal or a conservative, BS is BS. It's also ironic that the people calling for the demonization of SUV's are also the same people that don't want domestic oil drilling or new nuclear power plants. Maybe huge windmills will begin to dot the horizon soon. :)
More media idiocy recently? How about the "Raelians" announcing a cloned baby? This is a wacko group that believes that the human race was created by space aliens several thousand years ago. Yet, this story continues. I'm sick and tired of seeing the female "spokesperson"....the woman with 20 shades of red hair on the news. Why doesn't somebody just call her a "craz-oid" and call her bluff? Chuck
Maybe huge windmills will begin to dot the horizon soon. :)
Chuck, I did read where there are plans for building huge windmills a few miles off the Northeast coastline in the water to generate power. When I say huge I'm talking about windmills as tall as the Washington Monument! :yesnod:
Personally, I HATE SUVs! Being as how all my cars are either sports cars or sport sedans, the proliferation of these leviathons on streets and highways has considerably reduced my driving pleasure and jeopardized my safety.
First point. SUVs do not have to meet automobile bumper heights, so if you get wacked by one, it will do considerably more damage to your car and increase your change of injury or death. If you drive a C2 and get rear ended hard by an SUV or pickup truck, its bumper will override your C2 bumper and burst the fuel tank flooding the cockpit with gasoline, and you will have a good chance of being bured alive in the ensuing fire. A number of C2/C3 drivers have met there demise in this gruesome manner. If you get T-boned by an SUV, even in the modern car, the SUV bumper will come in through the side widow and crush your skull. The door side guard beams will not resist penetration because the bumper will override them.
Second point. SUVs do not have to pay a "gas guzzler" tax even though many of them guzzle more fuel than the relative handful of big sedans and exotic sports cars that are subject to this tax, and even though 99 percent of SUVs are used for the same personal transportation purposes.
Third point, though moot at this time, SUVs were not subject to the former luxury tax even though they function essentially as cars.
The current definition of "light truck" and "passenger car" was established in the sixties, when light trucks were only ten percent of the new car fleet and were mostly bought by tradesmen, farmers, and others who really needed the cargo hauling features of a light truck. Since then, industry and government have conspired, both consciously and unconciously, to gerrymander the regulations - like calling SUVs and Minivans "trucks". In fact, a manufacturer can call a vehicle just about whatever they want depending upon their agenda. Chrysler classifies the PT Cruiser as a "truck" because its relatively good fuel economy helps offset their big gas guzzling trucks and helps them meet current truck CAFE regulations. The OEMs love SUVs because the carry more profit margin than cars. Most are built from relatively cheap and crude truck components, but people are willing to pay luxury sedan prices for them. The government allows these shenanigans because its composed of mindless bureaucrats and gutless solons.
I advocate a redefinition of vehicles to "passenger vehicles" and "cargo vehicles" with more uniformity of saftey standards for both types and on the order or current passenger car standards. As far as fuel efficiency is concerned, I am against CAFE, but propose that a one dollar per gallon tax on gasoline be established, in return for a reduction in income tax rates that will be, on average, be revenue neutral. This tax could also be "variable" to help stabilize gasoline prices at the pump and provide more isolation of crude oil price fluctuations. Once consumers get used to the higher prices, they will grow to appreciate price stability.
People don't seem to care about fuel efficiency as long as gasoline is under about $1.50 per gallon. If it goes to $2.50, which is still barely more than half of what most industrialized countries pay at the pump, people will start buying more rational vehicles. People seem to be happy when they get a tax refund of $500 even if they paid $10 to $20K in income taxes. If more people did their own taxes and realized how much of their earnings are confiscated by government, they should be justifiably outraged. By comparison another one dollar in gasoline tax would be at the noise level.
As one of conserative/libertarian politico-socio-economic philosophy, I advocate free markets, but when regulation is required, it should be rational, uniform, and fair. People of all philosophical persuasions are universal in their advocacy of tax policies to encourage desired behavior, and I am no different, which is why I advocate an increased fuel tax in return for less income tax. People will squeal like stuck pigs if they have to pay $500 more per year in gasoline tax, and will eventually buy more fuel efficient vehicles. Most people wouldn't even notice if their income tax increased $500 on the same income.
Maybe huge windmills will begin to dot the horizon soon.
Current electric power consumption in the United States averages over 4 terawatts. To generate a significant fraction of this amount of power with windmills, you would need a line of them from the Canadian border to Mexico extending every mile from the Rocky Mountains to the Mississippi River.
Solar cells take nearly as much energy to manufacture as they will return over their useful life.
So called "alternative" energy sources promoted by the tree-hugger set are junk science at worst and window dressing at best.
The same applies to hydrogen fuel cells. Most of the hydrogen atoms on earth are locked up in water molecules and The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that it will take more energy to extract the hydrogen from water than it will ever return in a fuel cell. So where is all that energy going to come from?
I could ask another rhetorical question: How many tree huggers understand Thermodynamics?
Personally, I HATE SUVs! Being as how all my cars are either sports cars or sport sedans, the proliferation of these leviathons on streets and highways has considerably reduced my driving pleasure and jeopardized my safety.
First point. SUVs do not have to meet automobile bumper heights, so if you get wacked by one, it will do considerably more damage to your car and increase your change of injury or death. If you drive a C2 and get rear ended hard by an SUV or pickup truck, its bumper will override your C2 bumper and burst the fuel tank flooding the cockpit with gasoline, and you will have a good chance of being bured alive in the ensuing fire. A number of C2/C3 drivers have met there demise in this gruesome manner. If you get T-boned by an SUV, even in the modern car, the SUV bumper will come in through the side widow and crush your skull. The door side guard beams will not resist penetration because the bumper will override them.
Second point. SUVs do not have to pay a "gas guzzler" tax even though many of them guzzle more fuel than the relative handful of big sedans and exotic sports cars that are subject to this tax, and even though 99 percent of SUVs are used for the same personal transportation purposes.
Third point, though moot at this time, SUVs were not subject to the former luxury tax even though they function essentially as cars.
The current definition of "light truck" and "passenger car" was established in the sixties, when light trucks were only ten percent of the new car fleet and were mostly bought by tradesmen, farmers, and others who really needed the cargo hauling features of a light truck. Since then, industry and government have conspired, both consciously and unconciously, to gerrymander the regulations - like calling SUVs and Minivans "trucks". In fact, a manufacturer can call a vehicle just about whatever they want depending upon their agenda. Chrysler classifies the PT Cruiser as a "truck" because its relatively good fuel economy helps offset their big gas guzzling trucks and helps them meet current truck CAFE regulations. The OEMs love SUVs because the carry more profit margin than cars. Most are built from relatively cheap and crude truck components, but people are willing to pay luxury sedan prices for them. The government allows these shenanigans because its composed of mindless bureaucrats and gutless solons.
I advocate a redefinition of vehicles to "passenger vehicles" and "cargo vehicles" with more uniformity of saftey standards for both types and on the order or current passenger car standards. As far as fuel efficiency is concerned, I am against CAFE, but propose that a one dollar per gallon tax on gasoline be established, in return for a reduction in income tax rates that will be, on average, be revenue neutral. This tax could also be "variable" to help stabilize gasoline prices at the pump and provide more isolation of crude oil price fluctuations. Once consumers get used to the higher prices, they will grow to appreciate price stability.
People don't seem to care about fuel efficiency as long as gasoline is under about $1.50 per gallon. If it goes to $2.50, which is still barely more than half of what most industrialized countries pay at the pump, people will start buying more rational vehicles. People seem to be happy when they get a tax refund of $500 even if they paid $10 to $20K in income taxes. If more people did their own taxes and realized how much of their earnings are confiscated by government, they should be justifiably outraged. By comparison another one dollar in gasoline tax would be at the noise level.
As one of conserative/libertarian politico-socio-economic philosophy, I advocate free markets, but when regulation is required, it should be rational, uniform, and fair. People of all philosophical persuasions are universal in their advocacy of tax policies to encourage desired behavior, and I am no different, which is why I advocate an increased fuel tax in return for less income tax. People will squeal like stuck pigs if they have to pay $500 more per year in gasoline tax, and will eventually buy more fuel efficient vehicles. Most people wouldn't even notice if their income tax increased $500 on the same income.
Go figure!
Duke
I agree 100%. Being almost killed because of a drunk driver in an SUV they are not my favorite types of vehicle. I do believe in the free market however and do not support these pointless attacks :seeya
Sorry but I have no symphany for the SUV and pick-up owner. They are the "in" vehicles with the suburban set. Does the average household really need one of these leviathans, to what, pick up groceries, junior at soccer pratice, or a night out to the country club? I think not. And at what cost? Our resources are finite. The gas consumed and the raw materials needed to produce these vehicles to me don't justify their existance. I doubt the average SUV owner ever went off road or towed anything with it, yet they are all 4WD with towing packages. Add to that they are dangerous to be driving with. You can't see the road ahead when your behind them. They barrell down on you from the rear as if they own the road and at night their headlights blind you. In bad weather, forget about it. They must think it's impossible for them to lose control with their almighty 4WD. God help help you if you ever get into an accident with one. Sorry but unless you have a real need for one, I feel the responsible choice is a fuel efficient sedan. I would hate to see our pristine natural wildnerness areas spoiled for the sake of these vehicles.
Chuck, Well I guess I just contributed to the terrorist movement and did not know it because last week I bought my wife an '03 GMC Envoy. In addition to that I drive a Chevy Blazer and have a gas guzzling 66 Corvette. And I thought I was a red blooded American. I pay my taxes.
We got some big bad gas guzling vehicles going over there right now to deal with that terrorism too. I guess you could say that they are supporting terrorism. Yea Right. :nopity
Just be glad that they are leaving our un-enviroment friendly vettes alone ....
And I am one of those weirdos that has to have a pickup truck...it's in my blood...
And I have to have something to move my 10,000 pound fifth wheel RV around with...So go ahead and call me Mr. Terriost Supporter...I have thick skin, I can take it...
Sorry but I have no symphany for the SUV and pick-up owner. They are the "in" vehicles with the suburban set. Does the average household really need one of these leviathans, to what, pick up groceries, junior at soccer pratice, or a night out to the country club? I think not. And at what cost? Our resources are finite. The gas consumed and the raw materials needed to produce these vehicles to me don't justify their existance. I doubt the average SUV owner ever went off road or towed anything with it, yet they are all 4WD with towing packages. Add to that they are dangerous to be driving with. You can't see the road ahead when your behind them. They barrell down on you from the rear as if they own the road and at night their headlights blind you. In bad weather, forget about it. They must think it's impossible for them to lose control with their almighty 4WD. God help help you if you ever get into an accident with one. Sorry but unless you have a real need for one, I feel the responsible choice is a fuel efficient sedan. I would hate to see our pristine natural wildnerness areas spoiled for the sake of these vehicles.
HUH??
Let me get this straight....it's ok to waste gas in a non pollution controlled vintage Vette that gets lousy mileage, but not ok to own an SUV, some of which get quite good mileage and modern emissions. Same comments about being hard to see past are true of minivans and virtually all commercial vehicles. I agree with the comments about some of the aggressive drivers, but I see that in everything from ricers to tractor trailers, and certainly don't condone it in any vehicle. I quite like my 4Runner (we get snow up here!)...and it gets better mileage than my Vette (way better). I have three kids, I need the room. Maybe those in the sun belt don't need the added traction but we northern types find they come in real handy. I pay through the nose for the privilege of owning both the Vette and 4Runner because gas in Canada is more expensive than in the USA. By the way Jerry, your car looks beautiful. Love the colour!! :cheers:
Some harsh words here! I personally do not like SUVs, but my daily driver is a Dodge Ram 4X4. Since they do seem to be everywhere, when one of them decides to run a red light while I am in the intersection, I just assume that I am in something bigger.
I sold my motorcycle in Nov in part for safety concerns (even though I have a decade + fof riding experience) and tend to drive the vette at times other than rush hour when possible.
As for the SUV supports terrorism - check out what the politicians in good ol' AZ did s few years back:
You could qulaify for up to a $30,000 tax credit for ordering a truck or SUV with alternative fuel retrofits. The kicker, there is NO requirement to use the alternative fuel. Do you have any idea how many people bought what amounted to FREE SUV's after the tax credit?
Sorry but I have no symphany for the SUV and pick-up owner. They are the "in" vehicles with the suburban set. Does the average household really need one of these leviathans, to what, pick up groceries, junior at soccer pratice, or a night out to the country club? I think not. And at what cost? Our resources are finite. The gas consumed and the raw materials needed to produce these vehicles to me don't justify their existance. I doubt the average SUV owner ever went off road or towed anything with it, yet they are all 4WD with towing packages. Add to that they are dangerous to be driving with. You can't see the road ahead when your behind them. They barrell down on you from the rear as if they own the road and at night their headlights blind you. In bad weather, forget about it. They must think it's impossible for them to lose control with their almighty 4WD. God help help you if you ever get into an accident with one. Sorry but unless you have a real need for one, I feel the responsible choice is a fuel efficient sedan. I would hate to see our pristine natural wildnerness areas spoiled for the sake of these vehicles.
I agree! I don't post here often but I had to on this one. In most cases, minivans have as much room for cargo and/or kids than SUVs, are more fuel-efficient, are safer for everyone, and with front-wheel drive do as well as most in the snow. On the other hand, if you need a pickup to tow trailers/RVs or for work, that's a different story but that's a fraction of the current horde of SUV/Large truck owners. I had a small Mazda pu (before my Ex got it) that was more than adequate to haul most anything a homeowner needs.
RE vettes: If they kept their SUVs in the garage as much as my BB vette, than it's an apples to apples comparison.
And I know this might be sexist, but most drivers are moms who have no idea how BIG their vehicle is, especially with a cellphone in hand!
Well guys,
Here is my take on it. I have a brand new Tahoe that gets 16 MPG That I use to haul my cars to shows a couple of times a year. If I were to get a mid-sized sedan that got 26 MPG then I would save approx $.0337 per mile of driving asuming a cost of $1.50 per gallon. Given my average driving miles of 12,000 miles I would save a whopping $404 a year! Of course I would have to pay someone to transport my car to the show and back at lets say, $750 per show. Are you beginning to see my drift here? Whether someone needs a particular car should be nobody's business but the person who is purchasing it!
The minute you start questioning my need for a SUV then somebody may be questioning your need for a corvette, or a gun, or........
This just the kind of dis-jointed socialist type of thinking that is slowly eroding our personal freedoms! Nobody seems to care about an encroachment on personal freedom as long as it does not seem to effect them. For the last 12 years, I had driven a full-sized GMC pickup that averaged 14 MPG, and never heard a word out of anyone about my choice of transportation, but the minute I start driving a SUV that is 20" shorter, the exact same height and width, and gets 2 MPG better economy, then I start hearing about it from everyone! If you don't like SUV's, FINE, dont buy one, but get off the SUV bashing. If you promise not to gripe about my purchasing a SUV, then I promise not to gripe about your buying a import car!
I think you missed part of my point - I'm not bashing them when there is a legitimate reason for owning one. From my earlier post:
"On the other hand, if you need a pickup to tow trailers/RVs or for work, that's a different story but that's a fraction of the current horde of SUV/Large truck owners."
If you're not going to be working on power lines, why buy a cherry picker?
The point of this thread is that most are buying them for status reasons and that because of their rampant popularity, they are getting exemptions from fuel efficiency and safety regs that they don't deserve. I'll tell you one thing, if you had to make a quick move in an SUV to avoid an accident, you almost certainly will roll the damn thing and hurt you and probably others because of the top-heaviness of these vehicles - just another reason of their exemption from these regs since they are classified as a truck. And, I'll stand by my point that most drivers of these large vehicles don't know how to handle them in regular traffic, let alone in an emergency avoidance mode. Again, I'm not talking about those that use them for the purpose they were designed for: trailoring boats, RVs, etc.; off-road or heavy snow use; or as a work truck. If this group were the only buyers (which includes you), we wouldn't be having this conversation because there wouldn't be that many of these vehicles on the road. As stated in the above posts, most of these 4WD vehicles have never been off the shoulder of the road and have never hauled anything but 2 or 3 kids which used to be the minivan segment of the market. I'm sure that 12 years ago when you were driving your truck, you were in a minority which is not the case today. My God, you drive by a school or daycare these days and it looks like everyone's getting ready to go 4-wheeling rather than dropping off their kids! End of :rant: :leaving:
Chuck, I am with you on this one, some people just feel the need to protest something and I suspect that since they do not own an SUV they don't want anyone else to either. These are probably the same folks who stop dam and road building to save snail darters (and they probably protested nuking the pond in Crofton to get rid of the killer fish, too). I own an Olds Bravada that I have used to (1) tow, (2) haul my dogs around, and (3) drive in extremely poor weather. Overall I get about 19 mpg in combined driving and compared to almost everthing else I own (exception being my 02 vette) it gets better gas mileage than all of them. Why can't people just mind their own business... :boxing
Corvette Store
SUV's Under Fire
