[Kevin]

I am betting there are more deaths occur because of hot rodded cars or sports cars than regular cars too.

We need to ban those too then.

Right Rob?

[suvsr4terrorists]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I am betting there are more deaths occur because of hot rodded cars or sports cars than regular cars too.

We need to ban those too then.

Right Rob?

You'd bet wrong. Compared to regular passenger cars, there really aren't that many sports cars or hot rodded cars. Take a look on the highway and count the number of:

1. Regular boring cars
2. Sports cars
3. SUVs.

2 will almost always be the minority. The death ratio may be high, but not because they're unsafe vehicles, but because of the driver.

[Railroader]

Hey Rob, how would you feel if I started talking about God non-stop?

'Cause you're worse than any Bible-thumper out there.

[ryaxnb]

Originally Posted by Doofy

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.

You know a Jeep is sometimes considered a truck... or just a Jeep. Jeeps aren't really SUVs.

[suvsr4terrorists]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Whaevar. Talk to the left hand, cause you ain't right.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by ryaxnb

ou know a Jeep is sometimes considered a truck... or just a Jeep. Jeeps aren't really SUVs.

You wouldn't call a Jeep Grand Cherokee a SUV? Weird.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by suvsr4terrorists

[img]http://www.fotosearch.com/comp/phdrobistehsuvthumper/PHD302/OS40024.JPG[img]

Are you high on the reefer again? Miss your meds time?

[suvsr4terrorists]

Nope, and nope. You just sound like a broken record, that's all.

[Railroader]

I Do?!?! Ha Ha Ha!!!

Oh... that's rich. Real rich.

Thanks for the laugh.

[suvsr4terrorists]

Originally Posted by Railroader

I Do?!?! Ha Ha Ha!!!

Oh... that's rich. Real rich.

Thanks for the laugh.

So ... what exactly did you do in the emisisons department? Just wondering since you were so blatently wrong.

[Railroader]

I did many things as an Experimental Engineer Test Mechanic/Technician. But when I worked in the emissions dynamometers dept. this is what I did:

Made sure the car was prepped for emissions testing.

Filled the car with test fuel.

I ran the car through the warm-up drive cycle.

Parked it in the elevator for the "soak".

Placed it on the emissions dynamometers.

Hooked up the car to the diagnostic equipment. Secured the car for the dyno and sealed the exhaust to capture the gasses for later testing.

Calibrated the diagnostic equipment.

Ran the diagnostic boards while another person drove the car on the dyno and captured the data for the engineers.

Compared data against expected result parameters.

And a hundred other little things just like any other job. But that was the EXTREME basic responsibilities of my job then.

And I'm not wrong Rob. You are ignoring people who are telling you that in '92 your car burned clean but probably doesn't now. And if it burns any oil at all (and you said yours will burn 1/2 quart) then it is burning a lot WORSE than any car currently on sale in the US today.

I retract my previous statement of 2-3 times. I was being conservative assuming your car didn't burn oil. It's probably around 10-15 times worse now.

[Link]

For the "Jeep isn't an SUV" argument, Jeep Wranglers are the ones exempt -- but we all know that, right? Because those were the GPs or whatever and were nicknamed "jeeps" as slang? ... uh .. yeah..

Jeep jeep jeep.

Grand cherokee and cherokee are SUVs though. The jeep, well, it's a jeep. It's too impractical to be used as a "sport utility vheicle"... it has 2 doors, a pathetic back seat.. and well, barely any power anything. Thank goodness

[suvsr4terrorists]

Originally Posted by Railroader

H2s pollute less than SVXs

Yep.

[Railroader]

Nope.

Originally Posted by Railroader

You are ignoring people who are telling you that in '92 your car burned clean but probably doesn't now. And if it burns any oil at all (and you said yours will burn 1/2 quart) then it is burning a lot WORSE than any car currently on sale in the US today.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ryaxnb

You know a Jeep is sometimes considered a truck... or just a Jeep. Jeeps aren't really SUVs.

Yay! I'm going to print that out on a bumper sticker and maybe the hippies will stop screaming at me.

[suvsr4terrorists]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Nope.

Yep. Please explain how you thought an h2 polluted less than an SVX. In otherwords, you cannot admit you were wrong. I have in the past. You can't.

[sek929]

Hes not wrong, hes right, righter than you are.

Darnit.

[suvsr4terrorists]

Originally Posted by sek929

Hes not wrong, hes right, righter than you are.

Darnit.

How's that? I provided proof.

[sek929]

forgot the <sarcasm> tag Rob.

A broken record indeed, defending the H2 for some reason

[suvsr4terrorists]

Ah. Heh. Yeah, my car just recently started to lose a tiny bit of oil... it's strange. The level doesn't move and it doesn't move and it doesn't move.... then eventually it's a tiny bit low, like 1/3 from the F mark on the dipstick. Maybe it's because I check it so much. >shrug< Oh well. Kilbey is wrong, but can't admit it. Sad. Even more sad that I proved some GM emissions dude wrong, and how wrong said GM emissions guy's 'guess' was. GM sucks.

[sek929]

I just spend the last 20 minutes fixing the shitty window mechanism in my friends awful Cavalier (03)

GM sucks indeed.

[riverfreak]

Originally Posted by suvsr4terrorists

It basically boils down to people who want actual performance, and posers. Heck, I'd say most SUV owners are BASICALLY like riceboys who put on bodykits and stuff on their civics, trying to look tough without any actual performance!

Hey, enough with the Civic bashing already!

I have a '93 civic that still gets over 30 MPG highway (and this is with bikes and kayaks on the roof!). It continues to run like a champ despite many mountain and desert trips. I've taken this car on all sorts of "4 wheel drive" roads, driven it deep into the back country, and to remote rivers. I've had a need for a 4x4 ONCE in that time, and even then it only amounted to an extra 1 mile on foot.

It's operating costs are exceptionally low; it's small tires are cheap and durable; a fill up is now costing around $25 US (can't imagine what the Hummer owners are paying); registration and insurance is about $400/year.

Although I can easily afford a new car, I'm choosing to get as many miles out of this car as I can. In part, it's because I'm appalled when I go car shopping and see how little progress has been made with fuel efficiency in over 10 years, at least concerning the vehicles on the market.

Oh yeah, I'm also one of the luddites who chooses to ride my bike over driving my car for most trips. It's often times faster and a helluva lot more fun. Granted biking is far more common in the western US -- where most cities and drivers accomodate bikes well -- than the midwest or east coast where drivers have no idea what to do when encoutnering a bike on the road.

[suvsr4terrorists]

Originally Posted by riverfreak

Hey, enough with the Civic bashing already!

I'm not bashing civics, I'm bashing things like this:





Civics are great cheap cars that seem to last a long time. But they aren't performance cars. Lots of kiddies get them, then add a big stainless muffler, bodykit, spoiler, and a new intake filter and they think their car is super fast and furious.

A stock neon has more hp, more tq, and kicks a civic to the curb in speed and handling. But they don't want to admit that.

[riverfreak]

Originally Posted by suvsr4terrorists

I'm not bashing civics, I'm bashing things like this:

Gotcha. I actually read most of your other posts in this thread so I know -- and agree with -- your viewpoint. I just happened to quote you since it was another mention of the Civic.

When I got mine, I just threw a rack on it and was good to go. The only mechanical failure I've had in 120K was operator induced: a failed alternator from driving through a flooded road out in the desert. I still have mud in the doors from that moment of indiscretion.

Actually, I'm glad kids are into fixing up civics. Maybe when mine hits 200K I'll be able to unload for enough to get a new beach cruiser bike! Single speed all the way.

[riverfreak]

Originally Posted by riverfreak

Gotcha. I actually read most of your other posts in this thread so I know -- and agree with -- your viewpoint. I just happened to quote you since it was another mention of the Civic.

More precisely, I should say that I understand the data you present to be true and factual. The substance of this thread isn't really a discussion about viewpoints.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by suvsr4terrorists

Yep. Please explain how you thought an h2 polluted less than an SVX. In otherwords, you cannot admit you were wrong. I have in the past. You can't.

Do you have selective reading abilities? I stated how in the post you quoted. I said it twice on the same page.

You don't think burning oil and cutting off catalytic converts affects your emissions output? You are a fool Robert.

[budster101]

Rob, you admitted you were wrong? Can you point is to when and where? I want to have it framed.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by sek929

forgot the <sarcasm> tag Rob.

A broken record indeed, defending the H2 for some reason

I'm not defending the H2. I attacking Rob's idea that his car is a clean burning vehicle.

My point is, older cars are destroying the environment faster than newer cars.

I think the pot's starting to affect things up in your noggin. You young pot smoking anti-SUV guys are 100 times worse than any evangelistic Bible thumper.

[budster101]

And the gas they must have... after having the munchies... must be horrible.

[bstone]

My SUV runs on E85 fuel (www.e85fuel.com)- it's environmentally friendly. I also am an EMT so when I see stupid people get into accidents with their SUVs, I grab my trauma bag and run over and save their lives.

I also live in my SUV in the summers while I go on a 15k mile road trip (every summer). Motels are too expensive and my SUV is much more comfortable.

[ThinkInsane]

Originally Posted by bstone

My SUV runs on E85 fuel (www.e85fuel.com)- it's environmentally friendly. I also am an EMT so when I see stupid people get into accidents with their SUVs, I grab my trauma bag and run over and save their lives.

I also live in my SUV in the summers while I go on a 15k mile road trip (every summer). Motels are too expensive and my SUV is much more comfortable.

You're TEH DEBIL!

[Link]

Good, bstone For a little while I thought it might be neat to get some sort of training in that field, tell me, how long does it take? I imagine it takes some dedication, but it'd be nice to have.

[bstone]

A bunch of people in my EMT class did it just because. Not too many actually work on an ambulance (tho I have for the past 3 years and love doing it!)

EMT-Basic class is about 3-4 month long. It's pretty intense and is a crash course on anatomy & physiology (tho not too in depth), assessment of injuries and illness, treatment, auto extrication (you get to cut apart a car with the Jaws of Life...really cool!), you learn EMS medications, oxygen therapy, ambulance operations, etc.

I made sure to study at least an hour every day and I got an A in the class!

[sek929]

Originally Posted by Railroader

I'm not defending the H2. I attacking Rob's idea that his car is a clean burning vehicle.

My point is, older cars are destroying the environment faster than newer cars.

I think the pot's starting to affect things up in your noggin. You young pot smoking anti-SUV guys are 100 times worse than any evangelistic Bible thumper.

Yeah, whatever you say Kilbey.

Though pot hasn't been proven to do anything to your brain, just like the H2 has not been proven to have worse emissions than a 92 AWD car.

I'll keep smoking, you keep buying gas hogging SUVs, everyones happy

[budster101]

What? Pot doesn't do anything to your brain?.... ha-ha-ha...ahem.

[sek929]

It affects brain signals but the after effects have yet to be proven to do anything. In fact seeing as there are currently ZERO deaths recorded from THC I'll stick with the non-lethal drug.

But this discussion further derails this already pointless thread.

Perhaps I'll start a pot thread, but that has been done to death too.

To each his own.

[budster101]

I'm all for legalizing pot if you can.. I just can't see it being done... even for medicinal values for MS patients...

I've never tried the stuff, so I can't really speak about it intelligently... just from what "I have read /heard".

[mojo2]

http://www.theantidrug.com/drug_info...-marijuana.asp

Usually smoked as a cigarette or joint, or in a pipe or bong, marijuana has appeared in "blunts" in recent years. These are cigars that have been emptied of tobacco and re-filled with marijuana, sometimes in combination with another drug, such as crack. Some users also mix marijuana into foods or use it to brew tea.

The main active chemical in marijuana is THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol). Short-term effects of marijuana use include problems with memory and learning; distorted perception; difficulty in thinking and problem-solving; loss of coordination; and increased heart rate, anxiety, and panic attacks.

Health Hazards

Effects of Marijuana on the Brain. Researchers have found that THC changes the way in which sensory information gets into and is acted on by the hippocampus. This is a component of the brain's limbic system that is crucial for learning, memory, and the integration of sensory experiences with emotions and motivations. Investigations have shown that THC suppresses neurons in the information-processing system of the hippocampus. In addition, researchers have discovered that learned behaviors, which depend on the hippocampus, also deteriorate.

Effects on the Lungs. Someone who smokes marijuana regularly may have many of the same respiratory problems that tobacco smokers have. These individuals may have daily cough and phlegm, symptoms of chronic bronchitis, and more frequent chest colds. Continuing to smoke marijuana can lead to abnormal functioning of lung tissue injured or destroyed by marijuana smoke.

Regardless of the THC content, the amount of tar inhaled by marijuana smokers and the level of carbon monoxide absorbed are three to five times greater than among tobacco smokers. This may be due to marijuana users inhaling more deeply and holding the smoke in the lungs.

Effects of Heavy Marijuana Use on Learning and Social Behavior. A study of college students has shown that critical skills related to attention, memory, and learning are impaired among people who use marijuana heavily, even after discontinuing its use for at least 24 hours. Researchers compared 65 "heavy users," who had smoked marijuana a median of 29 of the past 30 days, and 64 "light users," who had smoked a median of 1 of the past 30 days. After a closely monitored 19- to 24-hour period of abstinence from marijuana and other illicit drugs and alcohol, the undergraduates were given several standard tests measuring aspects of attention, memory, and learning. Compared to the light users, heavy marijuana users made more errors and had more difficulty sustaining attention, shifting attention to meet the demands of changes in the environment, and in registering, processing, and using information. The findings suggest that the greater impairment among heavy users is likely due to an alteration of brain activity produced by marijuana.

Longitudinal research on marijuana use among young people below college age indicates those who used have lower achievement than the non-users, more acceptance of deviant behavior, more delinquent behavior and aggression, greater rebelliousness, poorer relationships with parents, and more associations with delinquent and drug-using friends.

WOW!

This might explain the inability of some of our posters to follow the information often presented here.

[sek929]

Unfortunate thing about any physcoactive substance is that it affects every user differently.

Yes, if used in heavy amounts it can be dangerous to mental health, but can't everything?

I'll still stick with the chemical thats caused ZERO deaths in recorded history.

[ThinkInsane]

Originally Posted by Jacob

I think that about sums this thread up nicely, don't you think?