My apologies to the SUV crowd on THR
- Thread starter Kindrox
- Start date
- Status
I actually need an off-road and cargo capable vehicle as my primary vehicle.
I've got a Jeep Grand Cherokee, and I don't see me getting another SUV. Katrina taught me a valuable lesson about SUVs. The main drawback is that if you have to haul something, its IN THE CAB with you. I had to haul a lot of things like gasoline-- you don't want to be in there for a few hours-- trust me.
I'll be replacing it with some type of Four-door truck with a locking bedcover. For all practical purposes it would pull all the duty I'd need a car or SUV for with the added benefit of an external cargo space.
Somehow, I don't think that will get the environmentalists off my back though.
Of course, I have an answer for them:
Today at 5:30 CST, there was a segment on NPR radio dicussing global warming and everyone's carbon footprint. The focus of the show was a couple who are trying to reduce their carbon footprint with good results.
Until...
It was factored in that they take two fairly long airline trips per year. This effectively DOUBLED their household carbon footprint.
The irony was that the environmental consultant that interviewed them acknowledged that problem with flying and how that can affect your efforts. He pointed out that he has to fly to many conferences per year-- one next week in London.
Global warming isn't caused by my SUV or Truck. It's caused by environmental activists flying all over the globe to have conferences with other environmental activists so they can talk to each other about my SUV.
I guess these people have never heard of e-mail, faxes, or video conferencing.
Side note as well:
Al Gore wants you to buy "Carbon offset Credits." I think he will even sell some to you. The premise is that if you are doing something bad enviromentally (such as his mansion that is burning 20 times the national average in energy), then you buy into an organization that will plant enough trees to zero you out.
Considering most of the people who get bent out of shape about my SUV live in urban enviroments, and likely in an apartment or condo without even a lawn to speak of, I think I am probably WAY ahead of them in carbon footprints. I've got a couple thousand acres of pine and oak forrest land. Seems that this should put me WAY ahead of someone who lives in a condo, but drives a Prius.
Heck, I'll even let em buy a carbon offset credit or two from me, if they'd like.
-- John
I've got a Jeep Grand Cherokee, and I don't see me getting another SUV. Katrina taught me a valuable lesson about SUVs. The main drawback is that if you have to haul something, its IN THE CAB with you. I had to haul a lot of things like gasoline-- you don't want to be in there for a few hours-- trust me.
I'll be replacing it with some type of Four-door truck with a locking bedcover. For all practical purposes it would pull all the duty I'd need a car or SUV for with the added benefit of an external cargo space.
Somehow, I don't think that will get the environmentalists off my back though.
Of course, I have an answer for them:
Today at 5:30 CST, there was a segment on NPR radio dicussing global warming and everyone's carbon footprint. The focus of the show was a couple who are trying to reduce their carbon footprint with good results.
Until...
It was factored in that they take two fairly long airline trips per year. This effectively DOUBLED their household carbon footprint.
The irony was that the environmental consultant that interviewed them acknowledged that problem with flying and how that can affect your efforts. He pointed out that he has to fly to many conferences per year-- one next week in London.
Global warming isn't caused by my SUV or Truck. It's caused by environmental activists flying all over the globe to have conferences with other environmental activists so they can talk to each other about my SUV.
I guess these people have never heard of e-mail, faxes, or video conferencing.
Side note as well:
Al Gore wants you to buy "Carbon offset Credits." I think he will even sell some to you. The premise is that if you are doing something bad enviromentally (such as his mansion that is burning 20 times the national average in energy), then you buy into an organization that will plant enough trees to zero you out.
Considering most of the people who get bent out of shape about my SUV live in urban enviroments, and likely in an apartment or condo without even a lawn to speak of, I think I am probably WAY ahead of them in carbon footprints. I've got a couple thousand acres of pine and oak forrest land. Seems that this should put me WAY ahead of someone who lives in a condo, but drives a Prius.
Heck, I'll even let em buy a carbon offset credit or two from me, if they'd like.
-- John
jjduller1946
Member
Whoa IM283, a couple of your points jump out at me.
I do not get your annoyance at the gals in the Tahoes and Explorers picking up their kids. They may have read Consumer Reports crash test or just like being higher off the road so they can see what is going on. They may like to know that even when it snows they can still make it to the food store, Dr's office, or make to school to pick up the kids if it snows.
We have a couple SUVs and an old Mercedes. My wife hauls the dogs to swim in the local river nearly every day in the older SUV. I also use tho old one to haul all sorts of stuff from my local Home Depot. We could get by with a small station wagon if that would make you feel better. But when it snows and my driveway is loaded up with a foot or more of snow from the County plow, could I give you a call to help with the dogs, Doctors appointments and so on?
While we are at it I think that we should limit home size to not exceed 1000 sf per person. And if a kid moves out of your home you should have to bring in a homeless person to keep your place.
And hell, like my wife asked the other day, "Why do I need all of these guns?" She may have a point now that I have decided to get rid of the SUVs and the old Mercedes for a station wagon. Did the Second Amendment really mean that I could have two 357 Mags, a 45, a 40 cal and a 22 cal pistol? And two shotguns? And a 45-70, 30-06 and 223 rifle? Clearly I need to melt down some of the metal, maybe just keep a shotgun and 357.
Our kids are gone. We have three extra bedrooms. Will put out the sign tomorrow: "Have 3000 excess sf, need three bums to save my home!"
Well on second thought, maybe I should sleep on it first. My bride is pretty attached to her SUV. And I am not sure she is going to be real understanding about my new social awareness when I tell her to plan on getting the kids bedrooms ready for the three bums. She might go for melting down the excess guns. But on the other hand, she knows I enjoy shooting, hunting and while she sometimes gives me a hard time when I start to get a new gun itch, I think she would rather have me happy and our home well defended, just in case some loser decides I don't deserve all this excessive stuff.
I do not get your annoyance at the gals in the Tahoes and Explorers picking up their kids. They may have read Consumer Reports crash test or just like being higher off the road so they can see what is going on. They may like to know that even when it snows they can still make it to the food store, Dr's office, or make to school to pick up the kids if it snows.
We have a couple SUVs and an old Mercedes. My wife hauls the dogs to swim in the local river nearly every day in the older SUV. I also use tho old one to haul all sorts of stuff from my local Home Depot. We could get by with a small station wagon if that would make you feel better. But when it snows and my driveway is loaded up with a foot or more of snow from the County plow, could I give you a call to help with the dogs, Doctors appointments and so on?
While we are at it I think that we should limit home size to not exceed 1000 sf per person. And if a kid moves out of your home you should have to bring in a homeless person to keep your place.
And hell, like my wife asked the other day, "Why do I need all of these guns?" She may have a point now that I have decided to get rid of the SUVs and the old Mercedes for a station wagon. Did the Second Amendment really mean that I could have two 357 Mags, a 45, a 40 cal and a 22 cal pistol? And two shotguns? And a 45-70, 30-06 and 223 rifle? Clearly I need to melt down some of the metal, maybe just keep a shotgun and 357.
Our kids are gone. We have three extra bedrooms. Will put out the sign tomorrow: "Have 3000 excess sf, need three bums to save my home!"
Well on second thought, maybe I should sleep on it first. My bride is pretty attached to her SUV. And I am not sure she is going to be real understanding about my new social awareness when I tell her to plan on getting the kids bedrooms ready for the three bums. She might go for melting down the excess guns. But on the other hand, she knows I enjoy shooting, hunting and while she sometimes gives me a hard time when I start to get a new gun itch, I think she would rather have me happy and our home well defended, just in case some loser decides I don't deserve all this excessive stuff.
Lucky
Member
I think once you get a pick-up you'll find just the opposite. You'll WISH you had a locking indoor large storage compartment. That's why so many people get tounneau covers and $1000 bed boxes for their trucks. Or extended cabs king cabs 4 door cabs suicide-door cabs, inside cargo space is king.
If you want to carry a bunch of gasoline, put it on the roof. Vehicles come stock with roof-racks, but you can improve on them greatly for mediocre amounts of money. Or there are off-road storage racks that attach to the rear trailer hitch, and carry lots of gear and gas tanks and beer coolers too.
ReadyontheRight
Member
It's pretty scary how easy it is for people to sign up to control other people's decisions.
Liberty...Freedom
These are not just words, people have died to give these concepts to YOU. Now you want to take them from me.
Please ask yourself - Why? What makes you hate a vehicle?
IMHO - targeting an "SUV" for penalties is as intelligently bankrupt as outlawing "Assault Weapons". It's a made-up definition who's only purpose is political subjugation.
Liberty...Freedom
These are not just words, people have died to give these concepts to YOU. Now you want to take them from me.
Please ask yourself - Why? What makes you hate a vehicle?
IMHO - targeting an "SUV" for penalties is as intelligently bankrupt as outlawing "Assault Weapons". It's a made-up definition who's only purpose is political subjugation.
Freelance Tax Collector
Member
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2005
- Messages
- 222
I drive a Jeep. It's not safe, comfortable, or environmentally friendly. I love it. Wouldn't drive anything else.
cbsbyte
Member
Though once fuel prices it all time highs this summer those in big SUV, and trucks won't be laughing. Those owner are really going to be feeling the pinch in their pockets. I have a few friends that drive large vehicle and all of them are now paying $60+ at fill up and that is going to go up. Getting a smaller vehicle for errands and daily driving is not a bad idea. I know several contractors whose wives drive sedans to save on gas. All of them park the big vehicle when they don't need it and use a more fuel efficient vehicle for non work related driving.
benewton
Member
Let's see...
Long bed, locking enclosure, people carrier..
I'm working on my second Avalanche, in my post pickup phase.
Check it out.
Long bed, locking enclosure, people carrier..
I'm working on my second Avalanche, in my post pickup phase.
Check it out.
Lucky
Member
It might be just me, but I read a but of smugness into that. But your point is valid, vehicles with high fuel consumptions cost more to run. I don't think anyone is really disagreeing with that. But the mileage in many trucks and SUVs really isn't that bad, and they are also practical. You simply can't convert a Passat into a cargo vehicle, if you move from one house to another, who ya gonna call? I bet you'll whistle a different tune then!
And once you get stuck out of the city, you'll reconsider the value of a tricked-out Civic. And once you have to crawl underneath, ground clearance makes more sense.
IMO most of the anti-SUV crowd is simply the same old stereotypes and prejudices overly-civilized folks have been throwing around for a long time at people like truck owners, except now they have a bit more 'sting' to their arguments, because they feel that calling someone 'selfish' is an insult (Ayn Rand, you were always a step ahead).
P.S.
For saving money, one could consider that most of fuel prices is TAXES, and therefore those that buy the most are funding the most public projects. And on top of that, a lot of zippy fast little cars are driven by knobs, and thus have high insurance rates attached to them. Combine unsafe driving habits with high insurance rates and you are paying MORE per year to run the vehicle, than an SUV or truck.
ID_shooting
Member
I just think it is crazy funny when people start bashing SUVs for thier poor milage, massive size, and soccer moms that don't "need" them but won't even bat an eye and even look twice at my Silverado. I get just as bad milage (worse if you consider I carry less people), my truck is just as big, and I likely see dirt maybe two or three days a month. But for some reason, my truck is immune from the debate. 
I guess it is alot like another debate, shoots the same ammo, does the same thing, just doesn't look as bad, hmmmm. Maybe there is way too much banning on looks and not enough facts.
I guess it is alot like another debate, shoots the same ammo, does the same thing, just doesn't look as bad, hmmmm. Maybe there is way too much banning on looks and not enough facts.
Smith357
Member
If a person wants to waste his money on a big clunky ill handling truck so be it, this is America and it his/her money. I prefer to waste my money on guns, motorcycles, sports cars, and guitars. Just who has the right to tell me what I do and don't "need", besides my wife.
Ok this thread really turned south overnight. I don’t mind people arguing about who really needs an SUV because frankly I know a couple of SINGLE people in DFW Texas that have them, and they don’t camp either. They got them for the sole reason that they wanted them. Good for them, they helped the consumption economy so I don’t have too.
There is merit to fuel consumption but SUVs are just a part of that problem.
Where we cannot go is banning SUVs because we ourselves don’t want one. This very thread shows what hot button issue this is, which is good because non-gunnies love SUVs too and that makes this issue a good one for high-lighting the double standard between SUVs and guns.
When you are discussing SUVs with a SUV loving none-gunny, point out the facts:
Rollover accidents accounted for just 3% of all U.S. motor-vehicle accidents in 2001, but they caused nearly a third of all vehicle-occupant fatalities.
When a large pickup broadsides a car, for example, the car's occupants are 26 times as likely to die as the occupants of the pickup. That is more than three times as high as the rate in car-to-car crashes.
http://www.car-accident-lawyers-attorneys.com/suv_rollover_deaths.html
In 2005, 37,594 vehicle occupants died in car crashes
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/
NHTSA’s most recent report also shows that, in two-vehicle crashes between light trucks and cars, for every one occupant death in a SUV, van or truck, there are four deaths in passenger cars.
http://www.citizen.org/documents/Driver_behavior_fact_sheet.pdf
The SUV loving non-gunny will have to face that his/her SUV is not safe for other people on the road and he/she faces a choice. Do we ban SUVs for the “good” of society, and save as many people as are murdered with guns, or do we let freedom ring and accept that some people will die?
There is merit to fuel consumption but SUVs are just a part of that problem.
Where we cannot go is banning SUVs because we ourselves don’t want one. This very thread shows what hot button issue this is, which is good because non-gunnies love SUVs too and that makes this issue a good one for high-lighting the double standard between SUVs and guns.
When you are discussing SUVs with a SUV loving none-gunny, point out the facts:
Rollover accidents accounted for just 3% of all U.S. motor-vehicle accidents in 2001, but they caused nearly a third of all vehicle-occupant fatalities.
When a large pickup broadsides a car, for example, the car's occupants are 26 times as likely to die as the occupants of the pickup. That is more than three times as high as the rate in car-to-car crashes.
http://www.car-accident-lawyers-attorneys.com/suv_rollover_deaths.html
In 2005, 37,594 vehicle occupants died in car crashes
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/
NHTSA’s most recent report also shows that, in two-vehicle crashes between light trucks and cars, for every one occupant death in a SUV, van or truck, there are four deaths in passenger cars.
http://www.citizen.org/documents/Driver_behavior_fact_sheet.pdf
The SUV loving non-gunny will have to face that his/her SUV is not safe for other people on the road and he/she faces a choice. Do we ban SUVs for the “good” of society, and save as many people as are murdered with guns, or do we let freedom ring and accept that some people will die?
Lucky
Member
Meh, trucks have always been higher up. Cars used to be higher up too, before it became 'cool' to lower them until they can barely get over a speed-bump. Because that family sedan is actually a race car, didn't you see the commercials?
As for fact #1: I've seen a highway rollover accident - it was two Pontiac Sunfires. The situation is that when you have highway vehicles going off the road, it's obviously going to be much much much more dangerous than a fender-bender in a parking lot. The statistics do not mean that SUVs are death traps because they roll over and kill people who drift too close to the shoulder. They mean that serious highway crashes where cars go off the road and roll over are - get this - unhealthy. Simple physics, the faster you go the worse things are going to be if something goes wrong. Vehicles don't roll over at slow speeds, they roll over at fast speeds.
As for fact #2, it's pretty silly. What about when a motorcycle broad-sides a car, I bet that's an even lower fatality for the car. And what about a skateboard broadsiding the car? Simple physics say that the heavier the vehicle broadsiding you the worse it is. It is NOT a value judgment. The only 'lesson' to be learned is to keep your eyes open because being broadsided is bad.
Fact #4 is the same sort of thing, except it exemplifies the faults with small sporty vehicles, made as light-weight as possible to improve acceleration and theoretical fuel mileage. Again, I bet that the ratio is even worse for skateboards hit by trains. It's just a silly and self-evident statistic - and that's why it's dangerous, because people think they can 'fix' the problem, when the problem is simple physics.
Just because lowering cars so that the drivers are in a bad position doesn't mean any other vehicle is badly designed. Look at the history of vehicles, cars are lower than ever before. After all, there's no point on shiny 18" rims with spinners if you don't have the lowest suspension possible - for that race-track no-one ever goes to but always dreams of.
As for fact #1: I've seen a highway rollover accident - it was two Pontiac Sunfires. The situation is that when you have highway vehicles going off the road, it's obviously going to be much much much more dangerous than a fender-bender in a parking lot. The statistics do not mean that SUVs are death traps because they roll over and kill people who drift too close to the shoulder. They mean that serious highway crashes where cars go off the road and roll over are - get this - unhealthy. Simple physics, the faster you go the worse things are going to be if something goes wrong. Vehicles don't roll over at slow speeds, they roll over at fast speeds.
As for fact #2, it's pretty silly. What about when a motorcycle broad-sides a car, I bet that's an even lower fatality for the car. And what about a skateboard broadsiding the car? Simple physics say that the heavier the vehicle broadsiding you the worse it is. It is NOT a value judgment. The only 'lesson' to be learned is to keep your eyes open because being broadsided is bad.
Fact #4 is the same sort of thing, except it exemplifies the faults with small sporty vehicles, made as light-weight as possible to improve acceleration and theoretical fuel mileage. Again, I bet that the ratio is even worse for skateboards hit by trains. It's just a silly and self-evident statistic - and that's why it's dangerous, because people think they can 'fix' the problem, when the problem is simple physics.
Just because lowering cars so that the drivers are in a bad position doesn't mean any other vehicle is badly designed. Look at the history of vehicles, cars are lower than ever before. After all, there's no point on shiny 18" rims with spinners if you don't have the lowest suspension possible - for that race-track no-one ever goes to but always dreams of.
2TransAms
Member
I have a Silverado work truck with a 30 gallon tank. Last time I filled up,it was $90.07. This truck only gets 15 mpg if I use the whole tank on the interstate. But, I need a 3/4 ton with a V8 to haul all my equipment and the Bobcat. But if I didn't carry tools and machinery and lumber and material, I could still buy the same truck and drive it anyway,even though if I was a pencil pusher a scooter would get me to work just fine. Because I can or because I want to is a perfectly good reason to do anything in my libertarian worldview. Same with guns. Do I need them all? You could argue that I may need one Dan Wesson .45 for HD. But I've got a lot more than that...because I can and I want to.
Btw,the truck gets parked at night,and the wife and I drive her little Mazda 6.Twice the gas mileage,but only one-third the macho factor
.I'm going to warn everyone that I am about to sound like a cold-hearted SOB right now. I don't mean to offend and I am not attacking anyone. I'm just tossing out a viewpoint.
I'd answer that we gain an understanding that life has a 100% chance of death. It's gonna happen-- no matter how hard we try to remove every possible cause.
Driving isn't safe. Driving requires obeying the rules of the road and being aware. Over my years, I've seen more and more people engaging in tailgating, or passing and whipping back in right in front of others. I sometimes think we've seen too many NASCAR commercials and are trying to live out a Jeff Gordon fantasy in our daily commute. "Dude, I'm not tailgating, I'm drafting." Sure you are, scooter.
My point is that things happen. I see a lot of accidents involving 18 wheelers. In fact, two months ago one of my old high school best friends was killed by one in a head-on collision less than 2 miles from my home. I don't see a ban on semi's coming anytime soon.
So, someone wants to drive a car that is highly economical, but has no mass to it, no clearance, and no rigidity. It'll pop like a grape if it gets hit on the interstate. Then the answer is ALWAYS taking action that will cause a change or effort in someone ELSES life. That's the essence of the "ME" generation. "I want it-- so you do everything to make it better for me."
Here's an idea: Put extreme pressure on the automobile industry to create a strong, safe, and economical vehicle that may actually protect you in an accident. We can put a man on the moon... I don't see why that is so hard to envision. We can make a Nascar race car that can hit the wall 6 times, blow all four tires, flip 38 times, catch on fire, blow up, and still have the driver swagger out and wave at the crowd. I think we can do better in bringing up the bar on safety.
This same phenomena is going on in the SUV market with fuel consumption. Already, there have been efforts to make them more fuel effecient-- with a number of hybrids in production or in the works. Why? Because there is a demand for it. Demand that you get your safe little cars. Economics is a strong motivation for innovation.
Perhaps there isn't demand. I find that people often scream for others to be like them or ban thier things when they do not have the numbers or voice to demand change with thier economic force. So they start screaming for legislation. Its not wonder that we are a country dictated to by small special interest groups....
For the public good... lets see... where have I heard that before? Well, I saw it asserted by a Fox news guest who doesn't want anyone eating fast food. I saw it said by someone that doesn't want us eating meat. I saw numerous people say it about banning guns after the VT shootings. I think Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and countless others have used that as well.
-- John
Again I agree with you. I should have clarified a bit. My point is, there are negative statistics about SUVs, and frankly like with guns, there are not a lot of positive (non auto manufacture published anyway) statistics for them. There is no money in publishing pro-gun or pro-SUV statistics, outside of the makers of them.
And if you just look at the statistics, and make a knee jerk reaction to them, just like with guns, some people can decide it is better to ban them.
Guns and SUVs have a lot in common when it comes to negative press and statistics, and I dare say there is a lot more positive about guns than there is about SUVs. Yet many non-gunnies are pro-SUV. If you find a person like this, you can use the SUV-gun parallel to your advantage.
Lucky
Member
Ah, I misunderstood. The negative press and misleading statistics are due to busy-body holier-than-thou killjoys. There are bad people pushing agendas, and I think the only solution is to stop listening to the evening news. Honestly, most of it is either meaningless 'kitten in the tree' stuff, or serious topics that are twisted and misrepresented into a form of propaganda.
TallPine
Member
Yes, but you can carry a lot of guns in an SUV
(or "Carryall" as Chevy used to call them)
QuickDraw
Member
I think this should be a bumper sticker.
I would proudly put one on my 1 ton,dually,stinky diesel truck!
K5mitch
Member
I really don't care what other people say
In my driveway right now, between me and my roomate is,
98 1-ton dually (my DD)
89 fullsize K5 Jimmy (4x4 toy)
93 v-8 s-10 drag truck (roomate's truck)
98 z24 cavalier
01 cavalier
99 s-10 4-cyl
Up at the shop we've got an '05 Colorado and a '78 K5 Jimmy. I've got a 454 I'm building for one of the K5's, my roomate is building a SBC 400.
Gas prices suck, but I'm going to enjoy gasoline while it's still around
In my driveway right now, between me and my roomate is,
98 1-ton dually (my DD)
89 fullsize K5 Jimmy (4x4 toy)
93 v-8 s-10 drag truck (roomate's truck)
98 z24 cavalier
01 cavalier
99 s-10 4-cyl
Up at the shop we've got an '05 Colorado and a '78 K5 Jimmy. I've got a 454 I'm building for one of the K5's, my roomate is building a SBC 400.
Gas prices suck, but I'm going to enjoy gasoline while it's still around
I think the point that the original poster was trying to get across is getting lost in the SUV argument.
If I understand Kindrox correctly, the point is that many anti's want guns banned, even though they make it safer for the carrier, because they might have a negative impact on others. Some of these anti's drive SUV's, which fall under the same ethical decision - safer for those inside, at the cost of possible increased risk to others.
As gun-owners, we've already accepted that we need to be responsible for our own safety, and thus there isn't a contradiction.
For the anti's, they'd have to concede that everyone should walk (since cars, bikes, mopeds, segways are dangerous to pedestrians
) if they want to maintain the argument that guns need to be banned due to the possible risk to others. They have an ethical contradiction.
If I understand Kindrox correctly, the point is that many anti's want guns banned, even though they make it safer for the carrier, because they might have a negative impact on others. Some of these anti's drive SUV's, which fall under the same ethical decision - safer for those inside, at the cost of possible increased risk to others.
As gun-owners, we've already accepted that we need to be responsible for our own safety, and thus there isn't a contradiction.
For the anti's, they'd have to concede that everyone should walk (since cars, bikes, mopeds, segways are dangerous to pedestrians
) if they want to maintain the argument that guns need to be banned due to the possible risk to others. They have an ethical contradiction.Let's see, my Jeep Cherokee, not the grand, just the regular cherokee, gets about the same gas mileage as a full size sedan. When I purchased it I needed to be able to make it to my job in any weather.
As far as environmentalists nagging me about my carbon footprint I usually ask them if they plan on having kids or how many they have now. Then I tell them that they need to add their kid's carbon footprint or pollution or whatever buzzword dujour they're using at the moment to their own. I have no children, don't plan on having any. My pollution ends with me, while theirs will go on long after they are dead.
That usually shuts them up. Seize the moral high ground and set up an MG nest.
As far as environmentalists nagging me about my carbon footprint I usually ask them if they plan on having kids or how many they have now. Then I tell them that they need to add their kid's carbon footprint or pollution or whatever buzzword dujour they're using at the moment to their own. I have no children, don't plan on having any. My pollution ends with me, while theirs will go on long after they are dead.
That usually shuts them up. Seize the moral high ground and set up an MG nest.
I sold my Tahoe for a Subaru and doubled my mileage or more, happy now.
I still have an 84 CJ7 in my garage for when that 4wd is wanted, the hell with need, I wanna make it up that slimy slope and it's my right to do it. I even drive it around town on nice days with the top down, does that make me evil?
I still have an 84 CJ7 in my garage for when that 4wd is wanted, the hell with need, I wanna make it up that slimy slope and it's my right to do it. I even drive it around town on nice days with the top down, does that make me evil?
Last edited:
$4.00 a gallon fuel will destroy the SUV - or take the companies whose primary sales are SUVs down the road to bankrupty...
But I get your comparison.
As a recent auto engineer check out the following website:
www.thetruthaboutcars.com
But I get your comparison.
As a recent auto engineer check out the following website:
www.thetruthaboutcars.com
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked