I have a SUV (Explorer) and I love it, simply because it's the only thing
that keeps me sane driving in the long Canadian winter. Tried all kinds of
cars; the Explorer wins.
But NOBODY can answer the question I ask constantly (in fact I've been
greeted with consistently stony silence, even from journalists who write
about these things): Why are there no SUVs or plans for SUVs with diesel
engines in the works? And why do diesel engines command ENORMOUS
premiums. A chap I was talking to a few months ago, told me that the
premium for diesel in his Ford truck, was $7000.
No point in having lots of biodiesel if you can't buy a decent, practical
(North American) vehicle with a diesel engine as an option.
P.
At 06:01 PM 9/28/2006 -0400, you wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Steck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 11:17 PM
Subject: RE: [Vo]: SUVs
> Just a question to all the pontificators... how is a family of 5 or more
to
> travel about in this age of seat belts and car seats? Guess what...
> minivans and SUVs for many of us are a legislated requirement not a
luxury.
>
Minivans are ok in my book, our old Plymouth Voyager was excellent. I also
never minded the old conversion vans, which when moving a large family were
pretty efficient. I guess my main point was having to go through the ordeal
of each morning having single 16-35 year old (primarily female) drivers
commanding a monstrous SUV for no other reason than to have it as status
symbol, attempt to occupy the same space as my (comparably) little Buick
Regal. Usually while speaking on the cellular telephone.
For large families, large vehicles make sense. Mostly what I (from a
mechanics standpoint) am opposed to with SUVs is
1. They are mostly bought for no reason other than to show the status of the
owner.
2. They are poorly designed in most cases, being awfully top heavy.
3. They are not as structurally sound as one would expect from something of
that size.
I am NOT opposed to large passenger cars. Or minivans or conversion vans or
trucks. Even an SUV with an engine that gets decent efficiency and is built
CORRECTLY would be ok. (read, it don't roll over) Driving the subcompact
cars of today is suicide; for instance, the Smart Car. (stupid car?)
Statistics show it to be ultra safe and hold up very well in an accident.
Reality is far different. They are becoming very numerous in Canada, at
least around Toronto, and the drivers just whip around in these things. I've
seen one totalled, it was a fatality. Very nasty. My fiancee's father in law
watched one hit an old Chrysler (ironic, no?). The Chrysler was moderately
damaged, but not totalled, could drive away under its own power. No serious
injuries. The driver and passenger of the Smart Car both died, one from
being crushed between the door panel and fire wall, the driver from having
his neck broken by an "unspecified component of the SRS." Probably the
airbag.
Yes, I've seen the videos of the Smart Car ramming a 20 ton concrete block.
I also know very well what I have to work on that gets dragged (not always
in one piece) to the shop, and I know that you can do all sorts of nifty
things to make a video showing that some car is safe ramming a main battle
tank. On the road, things are different. Nor do I like shock aborbers that
have internal computers, which cost $1200 apiece....just wait till 2012
guys. 2008's a bitch too, with the new ECU architecture. Life's fun.
--Kyle
