On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 08:42:53PM -0400, John Francis wrote: > On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 04:04:54PM -0700, Larry Colen wrote: > > > > I will note that at one point the Chevy Suburban had the "richest > > demographic" of any production car, because it was the most > > comfortable vehicle that would tow a horse trailer. > > I'd take that with a very large dose of salt - I'd bet the demographics > for Bentley or Rolls-Royce (or, come to that, Ferrari or Lamborghini) > comfortably exceed that of the Suburban.
I think that you and I are working with different values of "production". Maybe I should have said mass produced. > > The other claim is suspect, too - having ridden in both, I'd say the > Range Rover beats a Suburban hands down when it comes to comfort, and > can tow even a large horse trailer quite easily. I don't know, in the mid to late 70's, I didn't see too many Range Rovers that came with 454 cubic inch engines. But, technically, your right, a range rover probably will tow even a fairly large horse trailer. I suppose that the story that the Suburban of the time would beat a Corvette 0-60 was bogus, despite the suburban having the aforementioned 7 liter smog exempt motor, versus the mere 5.7 smogged down liters (454 vs 350 ci) in the vette. -- The fastest way to get your question answered on the net is to post the wrong answer. Larry Colen [email protected] http://www.red4est.com/lrc -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
