[Fyre4ce]

Originally Posted by suvsr4terrorists

I'm not commenting on my car, but you are trying to tell me your Jeep gets 26.5mpg in MIXED driving, in the city and whatnot? That's your average tank MPG? Surely you must get above 30mpg on the highway then, right?

I only ask because you stated the average MPG for the other two cars.... as you've read earlier I've gotten 28.5mpg before.

Rob,

His Jeep is a diesel, that's why the mileage is higher than expected. For the record: diesels are inherently more efficient than gasoline engines, but have their own set of problems, envorinmental and otherwise. They emit much more particulate matter, which is damaging to lungs and has been linked to cancer. They are also harder to start in the winter, heavier, and more expensive.

But even if he's getting great mileage from his Jeep, it doesn't matter. Most SUV's get far worse than that. It doesn't change the argument. The fact remains that SUV's inherently burn more gas and emit more harmful chemicals.

[suvsr4terrorists]

Originally Posted by Fyre4ce

Rob,

His Jeep is a diesel, that's why the mileage is higher than expected. For the record: diesels are inherently more efficient than gasoline engines, but have their own set of problems, envorinmental and otherwise. They emit much more particulate matter, which is damaging to lungs and has been linked to cancer. They are also harder to start in the winter, heavier, and more expensive.

But even if he's getting great mileage from his Jeep, it doesn't matter. Most SUV's get far worse than that. It doesn't change the argument. The fact remains that SUV's inherently burn more gas and emit more harmful chemicals.

I know. I just have a feeling he's using his maximum mpg in comparison to the other cars average mpg.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by suvsr4terrorists

I know. I just have a feeling he's using his maximum mpg in comparison to the other cars average mpg.

Nope, that's the overall average.

Here's how I work it:
Every time I go to the garage, I fill the tank. I then take the litres pumped and the odometer reading and pop those into a spreadsheet. From this, the sheet is set up to calculate the MPG since last pump visit and average overall MPG. Of course, this is UK MPG (gallon = 4.54) so for the purposes of posting here I convert it to US MPG (gallon = 3.78).

And why do I keep bringing it up? Because you constantly moan about SUV's wasting more resources than normal cars. The Jeep is an SUV yet isn't wasting as much as your SVX - so you really have no leg to stand on in that argument.

[sek929]

Yes but as you said before, your on the other side of the pond.

Noone but contractor's buy Diesels here.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by sek929

Yes but as you said before, your on the other side of the pond.

Noone but contractor's buy Diesels here.

Well isn't this what Rob should be ranting about then?

[suvsr4terrorists]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Well isn't this what Rob should be ranting about then?

I have no idea. I'm ranting about SUVs wasting gas. The fact that your ultra rare only available in europe jeep gets decent mpg is news to me, but I don't see how it totally destroys my argument. Congrats. Your SUV must somehow magically get over 30mpg (I still don't buy it), but that doesn't mean most SUVs get HALF of what you get.

[jebjeb]

So rather than going 'round and 'round arguing two sides of this, what can we do about it? What are the potential solutions?

What do you guys think of these;

1) There is not a whole lot we can do about exist SUV's on the road. What we can do is make sure they (including all other cars as well - not just SUVs) run their best well into the future by making it law to have them tested for safety and emissions yearly.

2) Someone mentioned that this is starting to happen but I am not sure if it is just state wide or for the whole US - Make all new SUV's come under car regulations for emissions and safety

3) Get the government to put in place (or increase existing) subsidies on low emission vehicles. Maybe this could be done by having multiple prices of fuel depending on which band emissions band a vehicle fits in. This would be better than a rebate system as people would not have to fork out all their money upfront and then wait for the rebate. This could either work along side the existing taxes on fuel or replace them. If someone driving a Civic (which might be Band B) getting 35 MPG pays $2.50 a gallon at the pump then a person driving a H2 (maybe Band F) pays $5.00 a gallon at the pump or something like that.

This would mean that when I went new car shopping, I could look on the windshield of the car and see what band it is in. I would then know what fuel would cost me if I bought that vehicle.

This allows people who want to run a high emissions vehicle the opportunity to do so but at more cost then if they chose a more efficient/less polluting car. Still giving people the choice is key.

Here's a scenario.
"So I walk into the show room, see a new Mercedes E55 AMG and can see that it is going to cost me $4 a gallon to fuel it. Hmmm, maybe I should just get the E320 diesel which has nearly the same amount of torque but with as it is in a emission band lower, it will only cost me $3.20 a gallon to fuel. Is that worth it to me? Hmm, maybe it is not worth it. I might just save the money on both the car and the fuel costs and get the smaller engine one."

Mercedes sees this happening all to often so they introduce work hard on the 5.5 litre V8 and in a couple of years brings out a replacement with the same power and torque but 20% less emissions (Don't know how - maybe a hybrid [which they are doing by-the-way]).

How does that sound?

4) introduce more subsidised conversions from petrol to LPG (Liquid petroleum gas). I don't know if you guys do this in the states but I know my Dad had two of his utes (tray top trucks/4x4s) converted. A company paid for the conversion (about $1500) which includes keeping the existing petrol tank and system so it is a duel fuel car and all he did was pay a premium on top of the LPG fuel cost for 2 or 3 years to pay of the conversion. It still worked out cheaper during those 2 years to buy LPG (It was a pump price of about 40c a litre and he paid an extra 30c a litre to pay of the conversion - petrol at the time was about 80c a litre) and then after the 2 years it was heaps cheaper. LPG produces significantly less carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen emissions as well as a smaller percentage of carbon dioxide emissions than petrol. LPG also emits 90% less particulates, in weight, than diesel engines.
The only problem with that is you have to have the filling infrastructure in place to support it.

What do you think of these options? Don't worry about the actual numbers too much, it is more the concepts that you need to look at.

[sek929]

Taxing the hell out of people who don't need SUVs = excellent

I could buy a dump truck, but I'd need to get my CDL liscence first, and pay a hell of lot more in taxes. The same should apply to big SUVs.

In the event that a person needs a large vehicle for work, all you have to do is show proof of your employment in a field that necessitates large vehicles with tow hitches and the like. Contractors could get discounts buying several vehicles for their crew and so on.

That way the people who need them can get them at the 'normal' rate, and those who use them to look bad and have fun would need to pay a premium for them. Since most people I see with big expensive SUVs are rich, they would have no problem paying more than everyone else, because they are using more than everyone else... everyone else that doesn't need it for serious work.

I'm not sure if anyone has heard of the International CTX 'pickup' but thats exactly the type of vehicle the public does not need at all, yet is available to everyone. Why?

[sek929]

Heres a pic:



There is already a tuner company putting on 24 inch rims and plasma screens all over the place.

What a wasteful and insane vehicle. Anyone who needed that much truck would buy a Mack or Kennworth... and would also have training in driving massive vehicles.

If nothing else, you should be required to take a 'largre than normal' vehicle driving class before ever getting behind the wheel of anything weighing over 3 tons.

[jebjeb]

Just a quick point. You will notice that I didn't just pick on SUV's. I believe that all non-commercial vehicles should be lumped together here.

Heres a comparison off www.fueleconomy.gov (Am at work so can not dump a jpg to my server so will do it as text).

This is between a big salloon car and a big SUV. I don't descriminate!

-------------------2005 Mercedes E55 AMG // 2005 Chevy Suburban K1500 4WD
Fuel Type------------------------- Premium // Regular
MPG (city) ----------------------------14 // 15
MPG (hwy) ---------------------------21 // 19
MPG (combined) ----------------------17 // 16
Annual Fuel Cost* ------------------$2196 // $2147
Ann. Greenhouse emissions--- 11.3 tons // 11.3 tons

Both have same emissions = both get taxed the same.

Of course this doesn't address safety, only emissions.

[besson3c]

What kind of mileage do cranes get? I'm thinking this would be a pretty cool ride, I've been saving up for one...

[sek929]

Cranes would have a big diesel powering elec motors.

So I dunno, probably around 1/4MPG

[suvsr4terrorists]

Originally Posted by jebjeb

Of course this doesn't address safety, only emissions.

Yep. Hence my beef. A car that's okay but gets mediocre mpg? Meh. A car that gets good mpg but poor performance? Meh. When you combine all the bad qualities you can think of into one vehicle, you get: Todays SUVs.

[budster101]

Sweet.

[budster101]

Originally Posted by suvsr4terrorists

Yep. Hence my beef. A car that's okay but gets mediocre mpg? Meh. A car that gets good mpg but poor performance? Meh. When you combine all the bad qualities you can think of into one vehicle, you get: Todays SUVs.

You are such an inspiring person. Makes me want to go out and buy another SUV.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by budster101

You are such an inspiring person. Makes me want to go out and buy another SUV.

Then you might want to check out Autotrader.com.

All the idiots who bought them and didn't need anything that large are now selling SUVs at low-cost by the thousands.

The amount of SUVs on Autotrader has quadrupled in the last year. Not to mention used car lots.

[suvsr4terrorists]

Originally Posted by budster101

You are such an inspiring person. Makes me want to go out and buy another SUV.

Wow. Such intelligent reasoning. So you might get a vehicle that's unsafe, performs poorly, wastes resources, and pollutes a lot just to get me mad. How rational!

[jebjeb]

Anyone want to talk potential (realistic) solutions rather than call each other names?

[budster101]

Well, I need a pickup so I'm going to get one. Thanks for the tips!

Autotrader eh? Wouldn't have thought of that myself... <sarcasm>

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by jebjeb

Anyone want to talk potential (realistic) solutions rather than call each other names?

No, not really. All the potential solutions are a bit fascist, aren't they?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by smacintush

Here Rob.

And before you attack the source note all of the IMPARTIAL links at the bottom to back them up.

Pretty much smacks down everything you've been ranting about here.

PWNED

And I saw rob's "Debunking" post of this. Which was just him spazzing out.

No substance.

Originally Posted by suvsr4terrorists

So you're saying that every SUV owner I see on the road has a 25'+ cabin cruiser? Doubt it.

+1

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by budster101

Well, I need a pickup so I'm going to get one.

No, you're deluded. You need to get a Hummer H1 (the soft top will sort of do as a pickup), move to WI, never use your turn signals and take to flicking your cig ends out of the window. That's what you really need to do.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by sek929

SUV club says SUVs are better than normal cars?

Ya don't say...

No, they are just putting what OTHER people have said in one page.

LOOK AT THE LINKS AT THE BOTTOM.

[jebjeb]

Originally Posted by Doofy

No, not really. All the potential solutions are a bit fascist, aren't they?

They are offered in the interests on generating discussion (I guess this is not required in this thread )

Have you got any less draconian ideas? I am working on a few myself. Personally, I think people should be able to drive whatever they want. Obviously it is a bit different over here in the UK (especially London). I think we have a generally higher class of car over here. As you have said before, it is common over here to see someone driving their 911 to work or their 4.2 litre Jag everywhere. The US could probably do with a good kick up in the petrol prices. As you know we pay over $6 a gallon and around 70% of that is tax. Maybe they need a similar thing, be it a variable scale as I proposed, or a set single scale.

I would be interested if you think it needs to change at all and if so, what may be an acceptable change to you. Same for the anti-SUV crowd.

[residentEvil]

FWIW

You can, and have been able to, get all chrysler/dodge truck products in diesel, for a few years now in the US. Nothing magical about them being available in other countries though, cause they have them here. They just aren't marketed well and they are not a showroom model but it has been available, for at least 5 years (1999 was my first view of a diesel cherokee for sale). And oh, it just isn't an option in heavy duty models for contractors; cause the Liberty now has a diesel option. Soccer contractors maybe? hahaha.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by jebjeb

They are offered in the interests on generating discussion (I guess this is not required in this thread )

Originally Posted by jebjeb

Have you got any less draconian ideas?

Not really. Well, not short of installing Boris Johnson as permanent PM.

Originally Posted by jebjeb

I would be interested if you think it needs to change at all and if so, what may be an acceptable change to you. Same for the anti-SUV crowd.

I think we've got it about right here (well, maybe if it dropped to about 75p/litre) - if only the fanatical Lib Dems would stop screaming at me and the EU would stop banning things (like bull bars and "loud" bikes).

[sek929]

Change will come naturally. Once gas peaks people who don't need SUVs will get rid of them and those that do will keep them.

Problem solved, its already happening. As I mention Autotrader's number of SUVs posted has quadrupled in the last year. Someone bothered to ignore that I guess...

Also, of course the SUV page is going to compile FAVORABLE information about their PREFFERED vehicle. I could go to ten sites that 'prove' the mini is the best car made, its all relative. The facts have been presented for years now that SUVs are wasteful and dangerous. Being an intelligent person I am able to comprehend why this is.

Way more inertial mass than a car means it wants to keep moving. High center of gravity makes it want to flip over, also disturbs every other characteristic of vehicle dynamics. 'Safety' illusion makes people feel safer and drive less cautious when, if anything, they should drive more cautiously as the vehicle gets larger.

Once you smash the other car with your SUV, yes, you will be safer. But what of that other car? Should we all buy tanks now to remain safe?

There is a reason why semis, dump trucks, buses, etc... require special liscencing. Why, then, do the biggest of the big passenger vehicles just require a 16 1/2 year old?

[ThinkInsane]

Originally Posted by sek929

A small pickup truck?

Just letting you know, Think, thats not an SUV, or even a heavy duty truck. I will be getting either one of those (Frontier) or a Tacoma in the coming months,

Yeah, I know. I've only said that in three different posts, including the one you just quoted.

[residentEvil]

Originally Posted by ThinkInsane

Yeah, I know. I've only said that in three different posts, including the one you just quoted.

You don't expect anyone to read what the other posts contained and comprehend them do you?

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Doofy

No, not really. All the potential solutions are a bit fascist, aren't they?

In the immortal words of Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=Fascism

What exactly does limiting the use of a potentially dangerous vehicle have to to with "A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism"?

An argument could be made for the "stringent socioeconomic controls" but that's it. If you keep saying it, that doesn't make it true.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by residentEvil

You don't expect anyone to read what the other posts contained and comprehend them do you?

Not when showing a comparison that had nothing to do with SUVs. He was bickering with Rob, I've read enough of that. The SVX has nothing to do with anything here, neither does the small Nissan Pickup.

[sek929]

Things like this beast do.

[suvsr4terrorists]

Originally Posted by Kevin

+1

The picture claims SUVs are necessary to tow 25' cabin cruisers. By that rational, all the SUV owners must have big boats, right?

WRONG.

The majority of them use the SUV as a glorified minivan. PERIOD.

[suvsr4terrorists]

Originally Posted by Kevin

No, they are just putting what OTHER people have said in one page.

LOOK AT THE LINKS AT THE BOTTOM.

No they aren't. They're twisting words and definitions, and saying "well gee they emit less pollution than a 60s car that means they're good!"

60s CARS DIDNT HAVE CATALYTIC CONVERTORS YOU TWATS.

I'll debunk that page in a while.

[suvsr4terrorists]

Originally Posted by Doofy

and the EU would stop banning things (like bull bars and "loud" bikes).

You realize most of the time you see 'bull bars' or brushguards they're on some fancy $45k+ SUV that's never going to go offroad in it's life?

They also SEVERELY strengthen the front end of the vehicle making it deadly if they ever hit anyone. I suppose you'd be okay with it if people started filling their bumpers with cement, and putting huge iron I-beams above that, right?

It totally defeats the purpose of a crash test in the first place, most of the time, and most of those vehicles NEVER EVER EVER ****ing go offroad.

[residentEvil]

Ooooh, I want a cabin cruiser. Not 25' though. Too small. I mean, if I'm ruining the environment with my SUV, might as **** up the water ways with a 42' Carver Mariner Sedan. On, but then I don't need to tow it cause it is too big. Damn, now I need to buy a bigger vehicle to tow it; and special permits to have it on public roads; and...

Curse thee my great SUV!

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Paco500

In the immortal words of Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=Fascism

What exactly does limiting the use of a potentially dangerous vehicle have to to with "A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism"?

There ya go.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by suvsr4terrorists

I'll debunk that page in a while.

You said that yesterday

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by suvsr4terrorists

You realize most of the time you see 'bull bars' or brushguards they're on some fancy $45k+ SUV that's never going to go offroad in it's life?

Maybe there. Here they're generally used on vehicles which do go off-road.

Originally Posted by suvsr4terrorists

They also SEVERELY strengthen the front end of the vehicle making it deadly if they ever hit anyone. I suppose you'd be okay with it if people started filling their bumpers with cement, and putting huge iron I-beams above that, right?

My bull-bars are mounted on soft rubber bushes which allow some give on impact. You want your head to have a cushion-soft impact on those or would you prefer it to hit the solid steel behind it?

[sek929]

Most of the folks around here have services that bring their boats to the harbor. Because towing a 42' boat with ANY SUV would be pretty tricky.

Except maybe the CTX, so if I see a CTX with a 42' boat on it, I won't have a problem with that.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Paco500

In the immortal words of Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=Fascism

What exactly does limiting the use of a potentially dangerous vehicle have to to with "A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism"?

An argument could be made for the "stringent socioeconomic controls" but that's it. If you keep saying it, that doesn't make it true.

Not allowing people to buy an SUV is "stringent", to say the least. Censoring automakers from producing SUVs is pretty rough too... but why stop there, just tell everyone they have to buy a 4cyl, no V6s. Ban the use of any vehicle over 10 years of age. Or better, make it to where only the wealthy can afford a vehicle AT ALL. Yeah, that would be good for the masses, that'll show `em.

It would be funny to see Rosie O'Donnell or B. Streisand driving a Focus. But you KNOW that wouldn't happen, they'd make provisions for them and their limos (8MPG) and we can "eat cake". My goodness, couldn't have the royals of the Left made to do without their luxury gas hogs, can we? Or personal jumbo jets so that they can solo hop from the US to Oz (Travolta).

When you've got the $$$ you can do what you want, when you don't, you accept whatever is shoveled. Let's start at the top and work our way down, then maybe more people will take any issue like this seriously.

[residentEvil]

Originally Posted by sek929

Most of the folks around here have services that bring their boats to the harbor. Because towing a 42' boat with ANY SUV would be pretty tricky.

Except maybe the CTX, so if I see a CTX with a 42' boat on it, I won't have a problem with that.

The larger ones at the harbor I go to are hauled by special carrier designed for the yahts and cruisers there. It is a multi day event and several roads are closed to the public. No SUVs for that.

It was a yoke son!

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Doofy

There ya go.

Yeah, but your problem is that you are only bolding selective bits. That doesn't really work.

Originally Posted by Paco500

Originally Posted by Paco500
In the immortal words of Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=Fascism

What exactly does limiting the use of a potentially dangerous vehicle have to to with "A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism"?

You see, the definition has other words in it, and those are some important words. There is no dictator, there is no terror or censorship and no nationalism or racism.

So it really isn't fascism at all.

Hope that helps.

[BRussell]

We wouldn't need the government to stop people from buying SUVs if people would just act in their own rational self-interest. But I suppose that's asking too much.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by residentEvil

The larger ones at the harbor I go to are hauled by special carrier designed for the yahts and cruisers there. It is a multi day event and several roads are closed to the public. No SUVs for that.

It was a yoke son!

Perhaps I should have included a winky face or something

[sek929]

Originally Posted by BRussell

We wouldn't need the government to stop people from buying SUVs if people would just act in their own rational self-interest. But I suppose that's asking too much.

We wouldn't need any laws if that was the case

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by BRussell

We wouldn't need the government to stop people from buying SUVs if people would just act in their own rational self-interest. But I suppose that's asking too much.

You mean in YOUR self interests don't you?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Paco500

Yeah, but your problem is that you are only bolding selective bits. That doesn't really work.

You see, the definition has other words in it, and those are some important words. There is no dictator, there is no terror or censorship and no nationalism or racism.

So it really isn't fascism at all.

Hope that helps.

Fascism doesn't require a dictator, terror, censorship, nationalism or racism.
You and your dictionary must be thinking of something else.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Not allowing people to buy an SUV is "stringent"

True

Originally Posted by MacNStein

. Censoring automakers from producing SUVs is pretty rough too

Would it help if I posted the definition of censorship as well? In any case, it's still not fascism, and it dilutes your argument to claim it is.

Originally Posted by MacNStein

but why stop there, just tell everyone they have to buy a 4cyl, no V6s. Ban the use of any vehicle over 10 years of age. Or better, make it to where only the wealthy can afford a vehicle AT ALL. Yeah, that would be good for the masses, that'll show `em.

Please reference the Dilbert comic above.

Originally Posted by MacNStein

It would be funny to see Rosie O'Donnell or B. Streisand driving a Focus.

They are blowhards. Even though they sometime takes positions I at least partially agree with, they are so distasteful it makes my skin crawl. However, I don't think either of them are actually involved in the discussion, so perhaps we should just leave them out of it.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Fascism doesn't require a dictator, terror, censorship, nationalism or racism.
You and your dictionary must be thinking of something else.

Can you tell me someone who does define it as "the desire to limit the use of potentially dangerous vehicles" aside from yourself? Can you point to ANY reputable dictionary that would define it in such a way as to fit your argument? Or do you just like saying the word?

Words have meanings. Big important words with actual historical significance certainly can be thrown around willy-nilly, but it just makes the thrower look silly. Or perhaps Doofy.