NationStates Jolt Archive

I don't mind SUVs, they can transport more people and cargo than some little car that might use not as much gas.

I don't mind SUVs, they can transport more people and cargo than some little car that might use not as much gas.

tht my friend is where you are wrong
suvs use like triple the amount of gas to get out of the driveway!

I don't mind SUVs, they can transport more people and cargo than some little car that might use not as much gas.

You want to trasport lots of people get a mini-van. Those are better with gas mileage and safer, too.

tht my friend is where you are wrong
suvs use like triple the amount of gas to get out of the driveway!
There you are wrong you are making generalizations … my friend has a kia that breaks the 30 mpg mark … where as my moms allero makes 23 or so

Really statistically they are HIGHER gas mileage but not triple (not unless you have a VERY efficient car and one of the WORST gas mileage suv’s)

You want to trasport lots of people get a mini-van. Those are better with gas mileage and safer, too.




I hate mini vans and besides, I can drive whatever the hell I want. And mini vans are not safer.

I hate mini vans and besides, I can drive whatever the hell I want. And mini vans are not safer.

i suppose some models are safer than others so dont make generalizations about the safety of a make until YOU have inspected it.
one of my friends had the nastiest looking car and we figured tht a good way to get rid of it would be to total it. it took us a real long time to do it and none of us ever got hurt ( except for a few bruises)

i suppose some models are safer than others so dont make generalizations about the safety of a make until YOU have inspected it.
one of my friends had the nastiest looking car and we figured tht a good way to get rid of it would be to total it. it took us a real long time to do it and none of us ever got hurt ( except for a few bruises)



Oh so for me to like a vehicle, I have to personalli inspect every feature/aspect of it *rolls eyes*.

You want to trasport lots of people get a mini-van. Those are better with gas mileage and safer, too.

Try getting into a side impact crash in a minivan. The door will end up inside the cabin. They are dangerous because they have no impact from side impact crashes, and there isnt a crumple zone in the rear. The front of the car isnt too big either.

tht my friend is where you are wrong
suvs use like triple the amount of gas to get out of the driveway!

SUV's dont have an engine that is 3 times bigger than a car.

your right i agree BUT... if people are just being asses and gloating about what stuff they have pisses me off because im not the richest person in the world i dont have all the nicest stuff and when people put themselves above me because they can afford anything they want i get really REALLY pissed off

I live in a $750,000 house. My total combined income between my dad, stepmom, and mom, is about $480,000. We have a house in New York, a condo in Maine, and in a few years, when I'm through college, my dads going to have a house built in Vermont.

Recently my stepbrother bought a $3,500 computer, not including the 19 inch monitor or 8 speaker surround sound. He goes to a $30,000 a year school and he's in 8th grade.

I'd rather drive a pickup, than a rolling death trap made out of tinfoil and chewing gum...

While we're at it let's ban Alcohol it kills more people than SUVs.

Then let's ban smoking. It kills lots of people.

Then let's ban fast food. It's unhealthy and idiots who eats to much of it may develop heart problems.

Then let's ban knives. They're dangerous. We can find more effective ways to cut things.

Then let's ban industry. It pollutes and some people die in industrial accidents.

Then let's ban water. It's the cause of many deaths. People drowning. People getting addicted to it, and dying when the go into withdrawal.

Then let's ban reproduction and make it illegal to be alive. Living has a 100% fatality rate and human's are the source of all pollution. Once we've banned living and have have killed everyone there will be no more death and no more pollution.

In case you haven't noticed yet I'm making fun of this rather silly proposition.

I realize that was sarcasm, but I actually agree with all of it except the last 2.

Their large, ugly, and driven primarily by soccer moms :cool: ...
Truly, we are two nations divided by a common language.

Can someone tell me what a "Soccer Mum" is?
And while you're at it, I keep getting spam telling me about MILFs. What's one of them?

Truly, we are two nations divided by a common language.

Can someone tell me what a "Soccer Mum" is?
And while you're at it, I keep getting spam telling me about MILFs. What's one of them?

Soccer mom is usually a married younger woman with younger children … usually children involved in sports such as soccer or baseball. (usually thought of as white middle class suburbanite)

They are looked down upon because of a general lack of connection with reality and blinded by her children (bias towards anything else but) also tendency to see them driving SUV’s or mini vans (even if they only have 1 kid)


Just think of a young mom that is COMPLETELY stuck up and cant see beyond their own needs. And they get really over excited if someone (even on the sport field) “hurts their BABY”

I get annoyed with folks from Europe insisting (as I got the impression was happening on this thread) on legislation in the US that makes sense to /them/ based on arguments from /their/ lifestyles individually.Why do you assume that this thread is solely aimed at the US? There was nothing in the original question (apart from the use of the local term SUV) to suggest that it was intended to be so narrow.

Much as I hate to generalise, but really, Americans need to realise that they're not the only country in the world. I'm putting the point of view from here (the UK) - and you're rebutting it not because it's valid or not, but because it's not about your area. Of course it's not about your area - that's 'cos like most of the world's population, I'm not from round where you live.

Why do you assume that this thread is solely aimed at the US? There was nothing in the original question (apart from the use of the local term SUV) to suggest that it was intended to be so narrow.

Much as I hate to generalise, but really, Americans need to realise that they're not the only country in the world. I'm putting the point of view from here (the UK) - and you're rebutting it not because it's valid or not, but because it's not about your area. Of course it's not about your area - that's 'cos like most of the world's population, I'm not from round where you live.


I think he was just getting defensive because Americans are usually associated with SUV’s so any anti SUV arguments tend to feel like they are aimed at us

Why do you assume that this thread is solely aimed at the US? There was nothing in the original question (apart from the use of the local term SUV) to suggest that it was intended to be so narrow.

Much as I hate to generalise, but really, Americans need to realise that they're not the only country in the world. I'm putting the point of view from here (the UK) - and you're rebutting it not because it's valid or not, but because it's not about your area. Of course it's not about your area - that's 'cos like most of the world's population, I'm not from round where you live.

First of all, I never assumed the entire thread was soley aimed at the US. There have been some mentions of the UK, but there have also been some anti SUV in the US posts (both by people in the US and without). I was responding to both.

If you took the time to read the /rest/ of the posts I've already put on this thread, you could see I've spent a lot of time rebutting the argument because it /isn't/ valid. The post /you/ are commenting on was trying to state that just as I would expect most foreigners to not meddle in US policy, I certainly wouldn't presume to understand enough about your own situation to force my view of legislation on you (including your safer bumpers or graduated tax ... as long as you keep it specific to the UK ... which you did not specifically do)

Lastly, many of the posts make /no/ reference to area, and simply appear to assume a global ban / tax / whatever on SUVs. That makes it just as relevant to argue a point of why they're necessary in my area (and the other areas I've lived ... as I argued).

First of all, I never assumed the entire thread was soley aimed at the US. There have been some mentions of the UK, but there have also been some anti SUV in the US posts (both by people in the US and without). I was responding to both.

If you took the time to read the /rest/ of the posts I've already put on this thread, you could see I've spent a lot of time rebutting the argument because it /isn't/ valid. The post /you/ are commenting on was trying to state that just as I would expect most foreigners to not meddle in US policy, I certainly wouldn't presume to understand enough about your own situation to force my view of legislation on you (including your safer bumpers or graduated tax ... as long as you keep it specific to the UK ... which you did not specifically do)

Lastly, many of the posts make /no/ reference to area, and simply appear to assume a global ban / tax / whatever on SUVs. That makes it just as relevant to argue a point of why they're necessary in my area (and the other areas I've lived ... as I argued).

I created this thread, and I'm from the NW of England. Just showing that I wasn't getting at the americans.It's just i think that america spawned these monstrosities, and using the term SUV would be multinational. Why SUV anyway? Isn't it sports utility vehicle? and what does that actually mean.
We just call them people carriers

I created this thread, and I'm from the NW of England. Just showing that I wasn't getting at the americans.It's just i think that america spawned these monstrosities, and using the term SUV would be multinational. Why SUV anyway? Isn't it sports utility vehicle? and what does that actually mean.
We just call them people carriers


Fancy name for something that is not quite a van and not quite a truck

and I dont know if this is what you were asking but
SUV stands for sports utility vehicles (first leter of each word) acronym

Fancy name for something that is not quite a van and not quite a truck

and I dont know if this is what you were asking but
SUV stands for sports utility vehicles (first leter of each word) acronym

yeah, i sorta knew it was sports utility vehicle (read my last post), but i wanted to know the actual reason. So i can shout it at the bastards using them who try to run me off the road and then have the audacity to say "sorry, didn't see you down there!" in a cheery, affluent voice. Stupid smug bitch driving her fancy monster while i sit in my 900cc enviro-friendly Fiat

Oh so for me to like a vehicle, I have to personalli inspect every feature/aspect of it *rolls eyes*.

im not sayin tht ........oh just shut your big mouth

SUV's dont have an engine that is 3 times bigger than a car.

im just trying to make a point
ok so it wasnt the best point...sue me

I live in a $750,000 house. My total combined income between my dad, stepmom, and mom, is about $480,000. We have a house in New York, a condo in Maine, and in a few years, when I'm through college, my dads going to have a house built in Vermont.

Recently my stepbrother bought a $3,500 computer, not including the 19 inch monitor or 8 speaker surround sound. He goes to a $30,000 a year school and he's in 8th grade.

ok lets get this straightened out....
i really dont give a crap about people quality of life.
All im trying to say is tht i dont appreciate it when people make me sound inferior to them just because they have nicer things than i do
Oh and by the way HOLY CRAP DUDE YOUR LOADED!!!!

I'd rather drive a pickup, than a rolling death trap made out of tinfoil and chewing gum...

A pickup truck is even more dangerous and more likley to roll over. They are higher off the ground, and the cab offers less protection if the truck rolls onto its roof.

A pickup truck is even more dangerous and more likley to roll over. They are higher off the ground, and the cab offers less protection if the truck rolls onto its roof.

Not if its a moster truck hahahahahahhaa

ok lets get this straightened out....
i really dont give a crap about people quality of life.
All im trying to say is tht i dont appreciate it when people make me sound inferior to them just because they have nicer things than i do
Oh and by the way HOLY CRAP DUDE YOUR LOADED!!!!

Just upper middle class. My dad and stepmom both made killings off their houses when they sold theirs. Thats only because of the real estate market. My stepmom used to be an executive at Mast Inc, but her job was sent to Ohio, and she stayed because of my dad. My dads the COO of a health data management company, he jsut got the job about 2 months ago.

My mom on the other hand, was unemployed from 9/01 to 6/03, and made shit until she got a new job a month ago.

BTW people.

England started the SUV trend with the Land Rovers, so don't try to blame it on America.

Not if its a moster truck hahahahahahhaa

Yeah, then you'll just drive 5 MPH everywhere.

Yeah, then you'll just drive 5 MPH everywhere.

tht will be the safest 5 mph youve ever driven ill bet

heh

Yeah, but not for those around you.

Yeah, then you'll just drive 5 MPH everywhere.

Have you ever /seen/ a monster truck? Try again.

http://www.truckworld.com/Shows-Events/2004-Monster-Jam-World-Finals/vegas04-1.html

67mph top speed /inside/ the arena for the race. These things are pretty quick.

A pickup truck is even more dangerous and more likley to roll over. They are higher off the ground, and the cab offers less protection if the truck rolls onto its roof.

Because that's real hard to fix (if anyone's concerned about their personal safety) with a $400 roll-bar welded into the truck.

And most SUVs simply started as trucks converted into muti-seaters (same as how the minivan started). They're actually just about the exact same height.

Because that's real hard to fix (if anyone's concerned about their personal safety) with a $400 roll-bar welded into the truck.

And most SUVs simply started as trucks converted into muti-seaters (same as how the minivan started). They're actually just about the exact same height.

I'd rather have the roof of my explorer protecting me than the roof of an F-150, even if it has a rool bar.

I'd rather have the roof of my explorer protecting me than the roof of an F-150, even if it has a rool bar.

Why? They're supported the same way.

hes right if there supported the same and one has better milage than why not use it instead of a big honkin large mondo gimongous SUV

hes right if there supported the same and one has better milage than why not use it instead of a big honkin large mondo gimongous SUV

And there's a reason it's been given the nickname, the Ford 'Exploder' (though it's not because it explodes ... it just falls apart)

I notice it's primarily other countries who want to take away Americans' SUVs and guns and quite a few other things...and then we are to trust THEM running to UN...I think the USA should pull out of the UN...

Notice the Fiefdom of Nemh is NOT in the UN for a reason...

SUVs are moving death traps which kill everyone: if you're inside and involved in a rear end crash the people in the back are likely to be crushed; if you're outside you'll be flattened by the immense weight, whatever the speed.

Yes, I have a passionate hate for all SUV's (and Vans). I would love to see those suckers banned.

4x4s - why? 99% of 4x4 owners use them to drive their kids to school. Unless you live in the countryside and drive to school through several very muddy fields, they are utterly pointless. Also, these behemoths are massive inefficient polluters, and should be the first to go of cars are ever banned. Any thoughts?

Well, I have a 4X4 pick up truck; however I do live way back out in the country and the 4 wheel drive has come in handy.

The post /you/ are commenting on was trying to state that just as I would expect most foreigners to not meddle in US policy, I certainly wouldn't presume to understand enough about your own situation to force my view of legislation on you (including your safer bumpers or graduated tax ... as long as you keep it specific to the UK ... which you did not specifically do) I'm happy to have interesting thoughts from wherever they come - you're most welcome to criticse (or praise) the UK and make suggestions about how it might be different. I wouldn't dream of telling you to mind your own business.

SUV's dont have an engine that is 3 times bigger than a car. Really? What is a typical SUV engine capacity? Many seem to be over 4 litres, some considerably more.

Really? What is a typical SUV engine capacity? Many seem to be over 4 litres, some considerably more.


Depends on the classification of suv

Small 3.0 liter’s and below (Kia Toyota Mazda Ford Chevy … and more have one)

Mid below 4.7 liters (Chevy ford Mazda mercury Toyota all make one)

Large above (ford and chevy seem to be the two top runners)

Though these are ambiguous (for one they are not official liter ratings for the small mid and large)
SUV’s like the Durango fit into at least two categories depending on the engine (in fact they have a larger engine in the Durango then in the suburban … which is ridiculous) why the hell would a quarter ton suv need a 5.9 liter engine

Yikes


The fact that engine size is not necessarily a measure of gas mileage (my 5.3 liter half ton truck gets almost 2 mpg better then my parents 4.7 liter ) really after a point it is more air space to make combustion more efficient.


like I said not actual ratings just how they tend to be split

You can own an SUV and not need, whatever, I don't care. Just expect the local neighbhorhood kid (aka me) to slash your tires about once a month.

tHL2s are hella fun to slash. The bigger, the better.

You can own an SUV and not need, whatever, I don't care. Just expect the local neighbhorhood kid (aka me) to slash your tires about once a month.


Yay cause you know slashing tires (and therefore usually running them) is so great for the environment

I mean it both increases gas mileage of the vehicle … and you know the rubber they throw away (the old tires) is obviously good for the environment!
Really if your point is environmental protection you really haven’t done that good of job

Yay cause you know slashing tires (and therefore usually running them) is so great for the environment

I mean it both increases gas mileage of the vehicle … and you know the rubber they throw away (the old tires) is obviously good for the environment!
Really if your point is environmental protection you really haven’t done that good of job

Not to mention if it happened in my neighborhood, you'd probably end up with some rocksalt pellets shot into you when they finally catch up to you doing it. Then you'd be pretty easy to catch.

"Yeah, officer. I'm not sure exactly who did it, but I got off a shot of rocksalt into his butt. He's not going to be sitting down or walking well for about a week."

Let's ban banning things.

why the hell would a quarter ton suv need a 5.9 liter engine
Took me a moment to realise that "Quarter ton" isn't the weight of the vehicle.

My elderly 2 litre turbo diesel estate will handle 250kg, though it's sluggish loaded up that much. It's had 320kg of bricks in the back before now - but it handled like a barge. The nice bit is it'll get over 50mpg driven nicely. That's UK gallons, of course - and we cheat by making ours bigger and better than yours!

And there's a reason it's been given the nickname, the Ford 'Exploder' (though it's not because it explodes ... it just falls apart)

aha ha hahahahaaha the ford EXPLODER hahahaa tht really funny havent heard tht one yet

No sarcasm intended

Yay cause you know slashing tires (and therefore usually running them) is so great for the environment

I mean it both increases gas mileage of the vehicle … and you know the rubber they throw away (the old tires) is obviously good for the environment!
Really if your point is environmental protection you really haven’t done that good of job

wow good job you just took the fun out of being a childhood prankster

Really? What is a typical SUV engine capacity? Many seem to be over 4 litres, some considerably more.

4 Liters in a V-6

5.7 or 5.9 usually in a V-8

And there's a reason it's been given the nickname, the Ford 'Exploder' (though it's not because it explodes ... it just falls apart)

My Explorer has never broken down on me. Its a 1995 with 175,000 miles. I bring it in for all the maintenance though. Its in perfect shape, there is a very small patch of rust on the roof, but thats it.

hes right if there supported the same and one has better milage than why not use it instead of a big honkin large mondo gimongous SUV

SUV's are the same size as their correspodning Trucks. An explorer is about the same as a Ranger, an Expedition is about the same as an F-150, and an Excursion is about the same as a F-350.

I believe it would be best to put a high tax on those gas guzzling autos. thats would dicourage the buying of SUV/4x4, but also allow the big manly-men to have their big cars, but with an expense.

Eh, I agree that their need isn't very urgent. To what point *do* SUVs serve, anyhow? For off-road mobility in the comfort of a car-like interior?
If you're soft enough to think that your day of off-road adventure should be topped off by watching a Hillary Duff movie in your DVD player equipped, dual climate vehicle...then maybe, just maybe, the outdoor experiance isn't for you.

I drive a few vehicles...a three-quarter ton F250, mostly to cart around the '64 1/2 Mustang I'm restoring. An '81 El Camino and a '73 Beetle.
The F250 is a big sonamabitch, gas-hogging, air-clogging too...but I use it only when I need to haul something.

Perhaps if people didn't use SUVs and larger Pick-Ups as their only way to travel, it would be less of a drain?

And don't say, "what if they can't afford two cars?" I've bought all of my cars for less than a single new SUV.

4 Liters in a V-6

5.7 or 5.9 usually in a V-8 That sure sounds like 3x a car to me!

why do american cars have SUCH big engines? Italian cars can get 0-60 is 6s and top speed of 160 out of a 2 litre. That's all that you need if you want a fast car. you don't need the massive top speed either. And don't tell me that big cars need massive engines to pull their weight, because the evil people carriers and trucks in the UK barely ever go over 3 litres, or even to 3 litres. The big three just have inefficient large engines to push fuel use up and make a deal with petrol corporations to make loadsa money

why do american cars have SUCH big engines? Italian cars can get 0-60 is 6s and top speed of 160 out of a 2 litre.

What car?

why do american cars have SUCH big engines? Italian cars can get 0-60 is 6s and top speed of 160 out of a 2 litre. That's all that you need if you want a fast car. you don't need the massive top speed either. And don't tell me that big cars need massive engines to pull their weight, because the evil people carriers and trucks in the UK barely ever go over 3 litres, or even to 3 litres. The big three just have inefficient large engines to push fuel use up and make a deal with petrol corporations to make loadsa money


I happen to agree specialy in smaller suv’s like the blazer the and the Durango … massive engines for what they can actually DO

But remember the liter rating of a car is not DIRECTLY proportional to the amount of gas it uses! (usually they are tied) but do not follow a direct line … the reason being that as liter rating includes air space

So for example if the optimum mixture is 5 parts air to 1 part fuel
A 6 liter engine needs 5 liters of air to 1 of fuel
Where as a 3 liter engine would need 2.5 liters of air to .5 liter of fuel

But not nessisarly true it shifts with compression … and such things

Essentially it works out to be that as an engine gets bigger instead of a 5-1 ratio it needs a 6-1 or 7-1 so as it gets bigger most of the extra space is needed for AIR


Anyways my babbling the gas mileage is not directly effected linearly as engine size increases. A big effect is engine efficiency (which is different then its size) weight of vehicle and shape

Those monster SUV’s don’t get their bad gas mileage just from their engine you know :-D

What car?

to be honest, i cant remember. try going through what car? if you're really that interested. I remember that it was proper expensive.

Those monster SUV’s don’t get their bad gas mileage just from their engine you know :-D

Yeah, the owners tend to account for a lot of the gas - "oh look at my AMAZING new SUV isn't it gorgeous and I can carry 10 people in it isn't that AMAZING and look its got a massive engine so that must be good isn't that AMAZING and oh its got 4000 cupholders and has a tendency to blw up ISN'T THAT FUCKING AMAZING!!!" :D

Yeah, the owners tend to account for a lot of the gas - "oh look at my AMAZING new SUV isn't it gorgeous and I can carry 10 people in it isn't that AMAZING and look its got a massive engine so that must be good isn't that AMAZING and oh its got 4000 cupholders and has a tendency to blw up ISN'T THAT FUCKING AMAZING!!!" :D

The cup holders don’t significantly effect gas mileage

I agree that it is a stupid attitude buy you reply to my post on effects of gas mileage on the individual SUV by responding with the stupidity of the owners… they effect gas used totally but not the individual machine

The cup holders don’t significantly effect gas mileage

I agree that it is a stupid attitude buy you reply to my post on effects of gas mileage on the individual SUV by responding with the stupidity of the owners… they effect gas used totally but not the individual machine

I'd say there was a reason but.. there wasn't. I just don't like SUVs. And I know there is no strong correlation between engine size and efficiency: There are some 2 litre 4x4s which have the same mpg as a 5 litre V8




And my original comment was a pun. You know, they produce a lot of gas (they talk too much about their "damn fine" machines of death)

some 1.2l cars can get up to 120mph and in england the max speed limit is 70mph so there still to fast. these cars cause less pollution, less noise and they can carry 5 people, any more than that just get a bus. but these SUV driving people, well, they just think there the kings of the road. i have a motorbike and other cars kinda respect that, theyl let me pull out at a junction and i let them... but then tese SUVs just pull out straight infront of me so i nearly crash into them and they never let me pull out even though if its a jam i just go down the side anyway.... i love to see there faces when i just whizz past them while theyre stuck, losing petrol, poluting our world even more... and most SUVs iv noticed dont have much dirt on them, maybe a bit from the road when its wet but nothing from dirt tracks or fields and if there not going to use them for what theyre made for whats the point of having one at all?

I'd say there was a reason but.. there wasn't. I just don't like SUVs. And I know there is no strong correlation between engine size and efficiency: There are some 2 litre 4x4s which have the same mpg as a 5 litre V8




And my original comment was a pun. You know, they produce a lot of gas (they talk too much about their "damn fine" machines of death)


Not quite that wide of gulf … but I know 4 liters with lower gas mileage then my 5-6 liter engines…

The 2.0’s are actually at or above care mpg (check out Kia’s sportage) where it is getting like 28+ mpg and is 4x4


Crazy stuff

indeed. it's what i've said all along. And, by the way, what size engine is your bike. If its bigger than 900cc its bigger than my car engine (reply to the last post but one by the motorbike rider)

some 1.2l cars can get up to 120mph and in england the max speed limit is 70mph so there still to fast. these cars cause less pollution, less noise and they can carry 5 people, any more than that just get a bus. but these SUV driving people, well, they just think there the kings of the road. i have a motorbike and other cars kinda respect that, theyl let me pull out at a junction and i let them... but then tese SUVs just pull out straight infront of me so i nearly crash into them and they never let me pull out even though if its a jam i just go down the side anyway.... i love to see there faces when i just whizz past them while theyre stuck, losing petrol, poluting our world even more... and most SUVs iv noticed dont have much dirt on them, maybe a bit from the road when its wet but nothing from dirt tracks or fields and if there not going to use them for what theyre made for whats the point of having one at all?
So it is the suv that is cuting you off? or the owner? I have a feeling it is the person driving

(and dont make me bring up climate arguement again because I am a minnesotan)

1000cc superbike. so my engine is larger than yours but about 5x smaller than some SUVs but i can still hit a higher top speed than they can and stil produce less pollution than they do. and its the drivers that cause it to happen, but its the SUV that cuts me off

So it is the suv that is cuting you off? or the owner? I have a feeling it is the person driving

(and dont make me bring up climate arguement again because I am a minnesotan)

yes but the driver is an ignoramus and therefore bought an SUV to satisfy his/her need for superiority on the roads. complete idiots, some of them. Maybe banning SUVs will mean these people lose the will to be assholes.

1000cc superbike. so my engine is larger than yours but about 5x smaller than some SUVs but i can still hit a higher top speed than they can and stil produce less pollution than they do.


Then the large SUV’s yes but not necessarily the small ones. (and btw not less pollution look up the stats for your bike … weight considerations on most bikes don’t allow a full catalytic converter)

1000cc superbike. so my engine is larger than yours but about 5x smaller than some SUVs but i can still hit a higher top speed than they can and stil produce less pollution than they do. and its the drivers but its the SUV that cuts me off

damn. my car is once again beaten into submission by a 2-wheeler. At least it does 100mph.

yes but the driver is an ignoramus and therefore bought an SUV to satisfy his/her need for superiority on the roads. complete idiots, some of them. Maybe banning SUVs will mean these people lose the will to be assholes.

Doubtful … (btw I owned an SUV for awhile now own a chev 1500 :P) not ALL of us are inconsiderate assholes

:p

Then the large SUV’s yes but not necessarily the small ones. (and btw not less pollution look up the stats for your bike … weight considerations on most bikes don’t allow a full catalytic converter)

I thought only diesels had catalytic convertors.

Doubtful … (btw I owned an SUV for awhile now own a chev 1500 :P) not ALL of us are inconsiderate assholes

:p

ahh, you're a nice one. hard to come by. i salute you

iv got a fully catalysed exhaust, petrol consumption of the bike is normaly around 60-70 miles per gallon and its a four stroke engine so unlike all those little mopeds and a few 125s i dont puff blue smoke out of my exhaust and believe it or not, unlike cars (or most of them anyway), bikes are alot more efficient in the tops gears as they consume even less petrol.

oh, and my bike can do around 180mph

I thought only diesels had catalytic convertors.


Nope every petrol using car on the road is required to have one … in fact in Minnesota at least they are allowed to check (go to your local muffler shop they are required to post that they are not allowed to remove a working catalytic converter unless replacing it with another one)

No car today would meat emission standards without one (and that’s what that rotten egg smell is with some cars … they are usually missing the converter.

iv got a fully catalysed exhaust, petrol consumption of the bike is normaly around 60-70 miles per gallon and its a four stroke engine so unlike all those little mopeds and a few 125s i dont puff blue smoke out of my exhaust and believe it or not, unlike cars (or most of them anyway), bikes are alot more efficient in the tops gears as they consume even less petrol

as tony the tiger would say: GRRRRRRRRRREAT!

iv got a fully catalysed exhaust, petrol consumption of the bike is normaly around 60-70 miles per gallon and its a four stroke engine so unlike all those little mopeds and a few 125s i dont puff blue smoke out of my exhaust and believe it or not, unlike cars (or most of them anyway), bikes are alot more efficient in the tops gears as they consume even less petrol


Hehehe I would love a bike but ya know what It dropped down below 32 f last night (0 C) I expect snow soon

oh, and my bike can do around 180mph

I only mentioned the 100mph thing to heal my own pride; I realise (haing ridden a few) that some bikes can do in excess of 100 in third gear. I'm still happy pootling around in my tiny fiat

thats the worst bit about having a bike, the weather... i suppose it would be an idea for me to get a car for the winter but bikes just cut out the jams that i come across. maybe an SUV might be good for cutting across the fields, it would cut out the jams anyway

1. My friend wouldnt be able to get into town without one as the roads in his area are so bad
2. a 'suv' which i assume you mean an mpv, is the only possible way to transport 5 children

my auntie has got an estate (a volvo one if your interested) that can carry seven people including the driver and they have room for the family dog.

1. My friend wouldnt be able to get into town without one as the roads in his area are so bad
2. a 'suv' which i assume you mean an mpv, is the only possible way to transport 5 children

Only possible way? How bout school busses (assuming they are not on your friends road … I understand I have to have a 4x4 for the same reason) but it is ridiculous to say that is the ONLY way to transport 5 children

Vans

Cars (bigger cars can seat 6 easy … 5 kids and 1 driver)
Station wagons (in fact go Subaru and get awd)


There are plenty of ways

Jacobzcool, yo be a fool

mashin rap i got goin there

hello? where is everyone?







































I'm all alone!

*sobs into seat of his highly efficient small car

hello? where is everyone?










I'm all alone!

*sobs into seat of his highly efficient small car

I would love an efficient car ... combination of local weather conditions and use just makes it not practical

I would love an efficient car ... combination of local weather conditions and use just makes it not practical

Small cars handle all right in snow/ice, and I use mine loads. Buy a smart car

I can't wait for Hydrogen fueled cars, or at least Hybrids.

Their so damn expensive.

I can't wait for Hydrogen fueled cars, or at least Hybrids.

Their so damn expensive.

Indeed. Tell me, where do they get the hydrogen from?

come on my thread!

Indeed. Tell me, where do they get the hydrogen from?
Right now there is three possibilities proposed

I won’t go into them but until recently separating hydrogen has not been efficient (more energy goes into separating it then the output from the fuel) there is at least one biological method and two electrochemical methods that are currently been developed

Very exciting stuff I want one if they can find a way to distribute it (also want to note the “scare” over hydrogen is really just a myth … the actual explosiveness is WELL under that of petrol vapors fill the Hindenburg with gas vapors and see what happens … I have a feeling the reporter would have been good and dead) (look up fuel air bombs)

The problem with the biological method is that it takes too long, and the problem with the electrolytic methods is that it takes more energy to separate the hydrogen than is in the hydrogen fuel, so it is cost inefficient

sorry, didnt read the start of yours. sorry!

sorry, didnt read the start of yours. sorry!


That’s ok

I agree electro chemical has been horrible until lately … I have been trying to find the articles I read about 5 months ago (PM and a few others) I guess the new methods are efficient enough that waste heat from power plants should be enough to provide current fuel needs

Right now it is distribution that is a big probem (and figuring out large scale manufacture)