About time Ford killed it

[jagec]

Originally posted by: EndGame
OK, how is telling people what they can and can't do not pathetic also?

I mean come on, you are aware that the airlines, heating/cooling/lighting our homes, and even the railroads are larger consumers of fossil fuels than domesticly used vehicles in the U.S right? The funny thing about it is, all but perhaps the largest user, the airlines has had alternative options available and researched and found to be feasable but still, fossil fuels are the number one supplier in each.

Why not focus efforts in those areas since they are the largest consumers and then the vehicular use will fall into place!

Funny, I have never heard people say that it was illegal to own an SUV. How are they telling you what you can and cannot do?

As for the rest of your post...raw numbers are not everything. A locomotive may consume a lot more fuel than a Civic...but the fuel consumed per ton-mile is much, much, much lower. Those are prime movers...they are very efficient.

What I'm lamenting isn't the size...if you really do need a large vehicle, go on ahead...but the way they're always EMPTY! If you need to haul loads of gravel, fridges, etc, you get a truck. If you need to haul tons of coal, you get a train. If you need to haul 1 person to and from work...you get a car, use the public transit system if there is one, or carpool.

I just really don't like waste. Obviously everyone is somewhat wasteful, and I'm no exception...but there are limits. It just rubs me the wrong way when people glory in their waste, since I grew up in a country where people didn't HAVE so much stuff. To hear a lot of Americans tell it, they truly NEED to go jetskiing every weekend, and they NEED to have more cars than family members...I just wish people would show a little gratitude for what they had, and were a little more willing to make some compromises to avoid meaningless waste.

I'm not going to TELL people what they can or cannot drive. But you bet I'm going to explain to them that getting a bigger vehicle "because it's the popular thing to do" has reprecussions. If resources were unlimited I wouldn't care...but they're not, and the third world always gets the short end of the stick.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Amused

Do you have more than you need for basic survival?

YOU'RE SELFISH!!!

:roll:

You're damn right I think of myself. No one else will, nor should they.

Tell you what, you think of yourself and I'll think of myself and we'll both be happy, OK?

that leads to overutilization of common resources... look up the problem of 'the commons'

 

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Why do people here like ot piss and moan about large SUVs and their owners? There are some people with large families who actually need a vehicle capable of hauling more than 4 people in comfort. Give it a rest already...morons.

It's not that they don't serve a purpose, it's that the majority of the people that own these things don't need them. I think that is where the rub comes in. Beyond that there are these things called "vans" that have been around for years. Many people who buy vehicles like this and cart their kids and groceries around would be better served by a minivan or van, but they just aren't "cool" like SUVs.

Fact: A person who buys a large vehicle for a large family will only have it filled to capacity 50% of the time or, in most cases, a LOT less. That doesn't mean they do not need it.

Fact: You cannot tow a large boat or trailer with most if not all minivans. Many people who buy large SUVs buy them to tow. But most of the time, they are not towing (of course). That doesn't mean they do not neeed them.

Fact: A minivan cannot seat 6-7-8 people AND all their luggage camping/sports/whatever gear. It just isn't going to happen. The full size extended SUVs can do this with ease.

Fact: For the limited amount of times a family needs to tow something it is more economically sound to rent a vehicle capable of towing the load. The costs of renting a vehicle capable of towing their load is much less than the costs to own and run this vehicle full time.

that leads to overutilization of common resources... look up the problem of 'the commons'

You don't actually expect him to understand that, and then accept that you are correct do you?

Amused is a complete by product of a throw-away society who's only measure of success is a limited stat such as GDP.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: Amused
Do you have more than you need for basic survival?

YOU'RE SELFISH!!!

:roll:

You're damn right I think of myself. No one else will, nor should they.

Tell you what, you think of yourself and I'll think of myself and we'll both be happy, OK?

Ah yes, because everything is black-and-white...either I am 100% selfish, or I live in a box.

Dude, I know Ayn Rand is popular and all, but that only works when population densities are low and resources are abundant. In order for civilization to work, people have to COOPERATE.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: mwtgg
Waaaaaah, somebody call the waaaaaaaaahhhmmbulance.

Jesus Christ people, if someone wants to buy a HUGE SUV, let them. It doesn't bother me a single bit. And for those who are so gung-ho against SUV's, take a look at how pathetic it is to tell another person what to drive and how they must use their car.

Some people think of nothing but themselves, other people think of the greater good.

It's funny to see the selfish people call the NONselfish people "pathetic".

Do you have more than you need for basic survival?

YOU'RE SELFISH!!!

:roll:

You're damn right I think of myself. No one else will, nor should they.

Tell you what, you think of yourself and I'll think of myself and we'll both be happy, OK?

That's the point I was saying earlier. Unless you live in a box or tent under a bridge, take public transportation for long distances and use a bicycle/feet as your means of transportation, you're being selffish.

Maybe he means we are more selfish than his selfishness.

 

[cavemanmoron]

Originally posted by: Doggiedog
Rented a brand new one once.

Not very spacious inside despite the large size. Took $100 to fill up when gas was cheap.

The thing rode higher than Suburbans. It was weird to see people in other SUVs looking up at you or being able to see their roofs.

Woooah,are they really that much bigger than a Suburban?

I like the new International Navistar truck,but its too much money.

Now thats a BIG truck,too. LOLhttp://money.cnn.com/2004/09/13/pf/autos/monster_truck/

Truck maker will sell giant pickup

Navistar starts marketing cement mixer-based truck that dwarfs the Hummer and the F-350.

BWaahhahaaa

 

[Bassyhead]

good, though i havent seen too many.

 

Ah yes, because everything is black-and-white...either I am 100% selfish, or I live in a box.

Dude, I know Ayn Rand is popular and all, but that only works when population densities are low and resources are abundant. In order for civilization to work, people have to COOPERATE.

He's not educated enough to understand the idea of true cost economics.

 

[SithSolo1]

Guess I'll go have to buy a couple before they run out.

 

[EndGame]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: EndGame
OK, how is telling people what they can and can't do not pathetic also?

I mean come on, you are aware that the airlines, heating/cooling/lighting our homes, and even the railroads are larger consumers of fossil fuels than domesticly used vehicles in the U.S right? The funny thing about it is, all but perhaps the largest user, the airlines has had alternative options available and researched and found to be feasable but still, fossil fuels are the number one supplier in each.

Why not focus efforts in those areas since they are the largest consumers and then the vehicular use will fall into place!

Funny, I have never heard people say that it was illegal to own an SUV. How are they telling you what you can and cannot do?

As for the rest of your post...raw numbers are not everything. A locomotive may consume a lot more fuel than a Civic...but the fuel consumed per ton-mile is much, much, much lower. Those are prime movers...they are very efficient.

What I'm lamenting isn't the size...if you really do need a large vehicle, go on ahead...but the way they're always EMPTY! If you need to haul loads of gravel, fridges, etc, you get a truck. If you need to haul tons of coal, you get a train. If you need to haul 1 person to and from work...you get a car, use the public transit system if there is one, or carpool.

I just really don't like waste. Obviously everyone is somewhat wasteful, and I'm no exception...but there are limits. It just rubs me the wrong way when people glory in their waste, since I grew up in a country where people didn't HAVE so much stuff. To hear a lot of Americans tell it, they truly NEED to go jetskiing every weekend, and they NEED to have more cars than family members...I just wish people would show a little gratitude for what they had, and were a little more willing to make some compromises to avoid meaningless waste.

I'm not going to TELL people what they can or cannot drive. But you bet I'm going to explain to them that getting a bigger vehicle "because it's the popular thing to do" has reprecussions. If resources were unlimited I wouldn't care...but they're not, and the third world always gets the short end of the stick.

So the railroad is being efficient even though the technology is/has been there to have electricly run locomotives for nearly 20 years now. Why don't they? If you ask them as has been done in interviews, it simply would be to much of a hassle and expense to switch the engines over to electric. What about electricity for home/business use? Why is 80% plus generated by fossil fuels when nuclear, hydro, solar, wind generation has been available for years now?

Look, I have 4 kids, we live on a mile or so long private drive and I also use my SUV to pull a trailer and a boat so most all the time my SUV is being utilized for its size and versatility.

No, nobody is saying there's a law prohibiting SUV's, but, some of you sure like to seem holier than though telling some others they shouldn't or are dumb to when there are obviously larger infractions of wasting our fossil fuels.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: cavemanmoron

Originally posted by: Doggiedog
Rented a brand new one once.

Not very spacious inside despite the large size. Took $100 to fill up when gas was cheap.

The thing rode higher than Suburbans. It was weird to see people in other SUVs looking up at you or being able to see their roofs.

Woooah,are they really that much bigger than a Suburban?

I like the new International Navistar truck,but its too much money.

Now thats a BIG truck,too. LOLhttp://money.cnn.com/2004/09/13/pf/autos/monster_truck/

Truck maker will sell giant pickup

Navistar starts marketing cement mixer-based truck that dwarfs the Hummer and the F-350.

BWaahhahaaa

You can get a C-4500 for about $40,000. Same size much much cheaper and on GMAC's commercial loan program which is much less intrest.


http://www.chevrolet.com/mediu...kodiak/model_c4500.htm

 

[Fingers]

Originally posted by: cavemanmoron

Originally posted by: Doggiedog
Rented a brand new one once.

Not very spacious inside despite the large size. Took $100 to fill up when gas was cheap.

The thing rode higher than Suburbans. It was weird to see people in other SUVs looking up at you or being able to see their roofs.

Woooah,are they really that much bigger than a Suburban?

I like the new International Navistar truck,but its too much money.

Now thats a BIG truck,too. LOLhttp://money.cnn.com/2004/09/13/pf/autos/monster_truck/

Truck maker will sell giant pickup

Navistar starts marketing cement mixer-based truck that dwarfs the Hummer and the F-350.

BWaahhahaaa

Don't see why anyone is interested in this. Looks useless as hell. I see no practical aplication for it. Bed of a full size pickup appears to have more capacity. Looks just like the H2, not practical at all and just for the people who want bigger. Oh well to each their own.

 

[mwtgg]

Originally posted by: cavemanmoron

Originally posted by: Doggiedog
Rented a brand new one once.

Not very spacious inside despite the large size. Took $100 to fill up when gas was cheap.

The thing rode higher than Suburbans. It was weird to see people in other SUVs looking up at you or being able to see their roofs.

Woooah,are they really that much bigger than a Suburban?

Excursion:

Length: 226.4 inches
Width: 79.9 inches
Height: 80.4 inches


Suburban:

Length: 219.3 inches
Width: 79.8 inches
Height: 76.5 inches

 

[Doggiedog]

Where are all the complaints about luxury sedans and sports cars?

They are wasteful too not to mention all too common.

 

[Fingers]

Originally posted by: Doggiedog
Where are all the complaints about luxury sedans and sports cars?

They are wasteful too not to mention all too common.

I meantioned that in one of my first posts in this thread.

Something along the lines of "well it's obviously wastefull to have any vehical with an engine large enough to propel it past 80 MPH."

 

[jemcam]

What a flamefest! Seriously, lighten up, we have freedom of choice in the US.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: jemcam
What a flamefest! Seriously, lighten up, we have freedom of choice in the US.

Not any more. They tell you you can't smoke. they tell you you can't sell x drinks,. They tell you to cut your yard under penalty of property seizure etc etc etc... just as matter of time before they tell you what you can drive (they do in a way already with GVW laws)

 

[Mookow]

Out of curiousity, how does the 4WD on the Excursion compare to the 4WD on the Expedition?

I ask because my buddy has an Expedition with 4WD, including a 4L setting, recently he got stuck in his back yard, and it might as well have been a 2WD vehicle w/o a limited slip differential. The back right wheel spun, the rest didnt do sh!t. At a minimum I'd think it should have one front and one rear wheel spinning.

He was pissed to discover this. I was pissed to have to push it :|


Now, to be on topic: I dont particularly like SUVs, but I dont want to see them banned or singled out for higher taxes. I would like to see people have to take a seperate driver's license test to drive some of the larger SUVs though.

 

[Zebo]

Yes you need lockers for all four to spin. Most 4wds sold are really 2x4's when tweaked and some are 3x4's with limited slip rear end. It's junk though when really tweaking over boulders and stuff.

Do a search for detriot lockers or ARB lockers. They cost about $800 an axle.

Edit you need careful instruction how to drive such a vechile w/o breaking drivelines and stuff.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: EndGame
Look, I have 4 kids, we live on a mile or so long private drive and I also use my SUV to pull a trailer and a boat so most all the time my SUV is being utilized for its size and versatility.

No, nobody is saying there's a law prohibiting SUV's, but, some of you sure like to seem holier than though telling some others they shouldn't or are dumb to when there are obviously larger infractions of wasting our fossil fuels.

well, it sounds like you have good cause to own one then...nothing wrong with that.

The thing with large industries is that they tend to hang on to equipment a LOT longer than Average Joe. Would it be nice if the railroads moved to more efficient locomotives? Yes, it would...and believe me, EVERY industry would love to have more efficient equipment, because it directly translates to a larger profit margin. However, they CAN'T sink the capital into new locomotives every 5 years, which is what Americans seem to be doing with their cars.

The problem is that pure economics can drive industries to pursue more efficient technologies...however, since gasoline isn't a huge concern to most individuals above a certain income level, they really don't care how efficient their vehicle is. So, they have to work off ideals. It was instilled in me that waste was to be avoided (and further reinforced in my education as an engineer), so I try to avoid buying things which are excessively packaged, products I don't truly need, or inefficient cars. Hey, you're hauling 4 kids around, your SUV probably gets more passenger-miles per gallon than I do, but if since only have to carry myself I get a small car.

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: jemcam
What a flamefest! Seriously, lighten up, we have freedom of choice in the US.

Not any more. They tell you you can't smoke. they tell you you can't sell x drinks,. They tell you to cut your yard under penalty of property seizure etc etc etc... just as matter of time before they tell you what you can drive (they do in a way already with GVW laws)

Smoke all you want outside or in normal smoking areas (bars, some restaurants, etc), but as soon as it starts to affect me, a compromise must be reached. I think I have the right to a smoke-free environment inside classrooms, government buildings, offices, and some restaurants, I think you have the right to smoke in other areas including those mentioned in the first sentence.

The problem is that what you drive doesn't affect me much right away, which is enough for some people to say "it doesn't matter". However, it DOES affect everyone in the long term...environmental effect, resources, and higher demand leading to higher prices. If you use it...fine. But if it costs you nothing to drive a smaller car, why not?

 

Originally posted by: jemcam
What a flamefest! Seriously, lighten up, we have freedom of choice in the US.

Absolutly, we choose not to sign the Kyoto treaty!

Were America! Were #1!!!!!
:roll:

 

[Fingers]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: EndGame
Look, I have 4 kids, we live on a mile or so long private drive and I also use my SUV to pull a trailer and a boat so most all the time my SUV is being utilized for its size and versatility.

No, nobody is saying there's a law prohibiting SUV's, but, some of you sure like to seem holier than though telling some others they shouldn't or are dumb to when there are obviously larger infractions of wasting our fossil fuels.

well, it sounds like you have good cause to own one then...nothing wrong with that.

The thing with large industries is that they tend to hang on to equipment a LOT longer than Average Joe. Would it be nice if the railroads moved to more efficient locomotives? Yes, it would...and believe me, EVERY industry would love to have more efficient equipment, because it directly translates to a larger profit margin. However, they CAN'T sink the capital into new locomotives every 5 years, which is what Americans seem to be doing with their cars.

The problem is that pure economics can drive industries to pursue more efficient technologies...however, since gasoline isn't a huge concern to most individuals above a certain income level, they really don't care how efficient their vehicle is. So, they have to work off ideals. It was instilled in me that waste was to be avoided (and further reinforced in my education as an engineer), so I try to avoid buying things which are excessively packaged, products I don't truly need, or inefficient cars. Hey, you're hauling 4 kids around, your SUV probably gets more passenger-miles per gallon than I do, but if since only have to carry myself I get a small car.

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: jemcam
What a flamefest! Seriously, lighten up, we have freedom of choice in the US.

Not any more. They tell you you can't smoke. they tell you you can't sell x drinks,. They tell you to cut your yard under penalty of property seizure etc etc etc... just as matter of time before they tell you what you can drive (they do in a way already with GVW laws)

Smoke all you want outside or in normal smoking areas (bars, some restaurants, etc), but as soon as it starts to affect me, a compromise must be reached. I think I have the right to a smoke-free environment inside classrooms, government buildings, offices, and some restaurants, I think you have the right to smoke in other areas including those mentioned in the first sentence.

The problem is that what you drive doesn't affect me much right away, which is enough for some people to say "it doesn't matter". However, it DOES affect everyone in the long term...environmental effect, resources, and higher demand leading to higher prices. If you use it...fine. But if it costs you nothing to drive a smaller car, why not?

It does cost to drive a smaller car. Costs you safety, convienience of carrying any large load you need to, Comfort for larger individuals. I could keep going but everybody's definition of practicle is different for every individuals wants/needs.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: Fingers

It does cost to drive a smaller car. Costs you safety, convienience of carrying any large load you need to, Comfort for larger individuals. I could keep going but everybody's definition of practicle is different for every individuals wants/needs.

size != safety..I could talk about rollovers if you like, and there's the ever-prevalent example of how indy cars have such a good safety record considering the situations they're exposed to.

Convenience...well, that's one of those times when you have to think about how many times you need to carry large loads. I argue that if you can fit a Kenmore refrigerator into a Honda CRX, most people overestimate their need for a "large" car to carry stuff.

Comfort-really varies from car to car. There are some small cars which are VERY cramped for large individuals. There are some small cars which seem to have more space than some SUVs, for the same individuals.

The problem is that the pro-SUV camp seems to think the opposition sees NO need for SUVs, whereas the anti-SUV camp seems to think the opposition never uses their SUVs for their true purpose. I don't think either side would agree with these stereotypes.

 

[psiu]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Why do people here like ot piss and moan about large SUVs and their owners? There are some people with large families who actually need a vehicle capable of hauling more than 4 people in comfort. Give it a rest already...morons.

It's not that they don't serve a purpose, it's that the majority of the people that own these things don't need them. I think that is where the rub comes in. Beyond that there are these things called "vans" that have been around for years. Many people who buy vehicles like this and cart their kids and groceries around would be better served by a minivan or van, but they just aren't "cool" like SUVs.

Fact: A person who buys a large vehicle for a large family will only have it filled to capacity 50% of the time or, in most cases, a LOT less. That doesn't mean they do not need it.

Fact: You cannot tow a large boat or trailer with most if not all minivans. Many people who buy large SUVs buy them to tow. But most of the time, they are not towing (of course). That doesn't mean they do not neeed them.

Fact: A minivan cannot seat 6-7-8 people AND all their luggage camping/sports/whatever gear. It just isn't going to happen. The full size extended SUVs can do this with ease.

Also add to that list, those who live in rural areas with large families....northern Michigan (especially the U.P.) gets a lot of snow, not too mention some trails that are very generously called roads. Even minivans with AWD are not capable enough for these conditions. That said, I've only known one family who had one where it served a legitimate-ish purpose.

I'm sure the extended Expedition will be big enough for anyone who needs one.




I still remember the first time I saw an Excursion. Kind of scary considering it's a fairly bland vehicle. But it was so.........BIG

 

[Squisher]

Originally posted by: SampSon

Ah yes, because everything is black-and-white...either I am 100% selfish, or I live in a box.

Dude, I know Ayn Rand is popular and all, but that only works when population densities are low and resources are abundant. In order for civilization to work, people have to COOPERATE.

He's not educated enough to understand the idea of true cost economics.

Do you realize how boorishly arrogant you sound?

Amused was making a valid point, we are all selfish. Some more than others.

At what point does my selfishness become noteworthy?

How much is too much?