Got a new ride.

[Crucial]

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: TuffGuy

Originally posted by: AmigaMan

Originally posted by: TuffGuy

Originally posted by: Excelsior
Of course you are, and so am I. I think you worry far too much about other peoples vehicles.

We're entitled to. SUVs pose a danger to smaller vehicles, they obstruct our view, they take up too much room and they consume so much gas that they're probably single handedly causing gas prices to go up.

It's not a matter of it costing more $ to go from point A to point B and whether or not you can afford it or not. It's a matter of using up twice as much fuel, polluting the air more, and most of the time they only have one occupant.

Ya know, only thing I can say is tough sh1t. If you're so bothered by not being able to see around my truck then get a bigger vehicle. If you're worried that you're gonna end up like a crumpled tin can if I hit ya, then get a bigger vehicle. And you know, I can afford the gas, so I'm sorry you're so poor that a couple cents more per gallon is causing you to worry.

Your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired.

Did I not say that it's not a matter of $$$ but a matter of how much more gas you're wasting? It takes me 1 gallon to get from point A to point B, it takes you 2.

Factor in how much that adds up to annually, multiply it by the number of SUVs on the road and that's a lot of wasted gas. Wasted gas that's draining the dimishing oil resources and jacking up the price for everyone else.

Your reasoning means nothing. For every 400 HP car on the road there are 10 geos or civics and 10 more people who don't even have a car.

How is it wasted gas? Is he stopping you from buying as much gas as you want or are willing to pay for? If I pay for and eat two slices of pizza, and you only want one am I wasting food or somehow depriving someone else of eating? What if I'm not really hungry anymore and get a third slice for pleasure because I just like the taste. Would that piss you off?

:roll: Wasting gas ... I bet ... I suspect p3n0r envy. You might sincerely beleive all this enviromental crap and choose to drive a smaller car, but it still pisses you off that everyone elses car pwns yours. You could just get a better car but you wont because it goes against your eco principles. What to do? Use politics to control everyone else that way you can feel good about saving the environment while not having to be envious of those who dont care (or know its not a problem).

Why would I think this? Because it's one thing to express an opinion of taste... its another thing to heavily criticize and bash as I've been reading. When I see comments like "oh what you couldn't afford the '07?" or someone showing they care way too much about how much someone else is paying for gas when they claim they don't care... these are tactics of attempting to downplay any advantages or benefits of someone else?s possessions. Why say you don't like SUVs at all but then then point out another SUV that is more expensive or better performing just to spite the OP? That desire to rain on someone elses parade? Yes thats known as envy.

Oh and it's not SUVs that are making oil prices go up BTW, its this thing called a cartel that arbitrarily sets oil prices to whatever they want, namely by restricting supply on purpose? Yeah thats right oil is NOT free market. That and the ridiculous "futures market" bullsh1t... jee all civilization will come to an end in 5 billion years so why not get scared about that right now and arbitrarily drive prices up to infinity.

Add to that fact that we haven't built a refinery in like 30 years to bottleneck gasoline production and distribution vs. population growth, etc.

Also BTW todays high performance "big" engines (like those used in SUVs) are far more powerful *AND* fuel efficient and cleaner running than the cars we have been driving for the last 30 years up until now, so why do only newly made SUVs get the blame? I mean 15-20 years ago a V8 would make 250 HP and get what 11 mpg? Now we can have 400 HP V8s that still get 23 mpg.

But I bet you don't complain about the guy with a busted down $300 70's 5000LB caddy with a 472 ci V8 getting 7 mpg and spilling fuel and smoke through the exhaust pipe and not even having to go through emissions. Nope, you only hate the 3900 lb SUV that gets 400 HP and 19 mpg because its shinier than your car and faster.

And what about people riding bikes who still say your 4 banger "wastes" too much gas? hmm?

Now then...

Mmmm I like superchargers esp whipple and kenne bell

<--- '03 KB Cobra and making preperations for a project to put a stroked 3SGTE (400-500 ft-lbs @ 4000 RPM with 2.2L) in a cosmetically stock '95 Camry (The Cobra has nothing on the humiliation factor of being wasted by a Camry)

Forced induction FTW.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

I need to print this and frame it.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: Nebor
A supercharged Suburban is silly. You've turned it from a 17 second vehicle into a 15 second vehicle. Yeehaw.

And I think we've addressed exdeath and his "700 whp" Cobra in a previous thread. Because that's BS on a stock 4.6 block.

Do some research on the '03 4.6 "Terminator" engine (iron block, forged and balanced steel crank and Manley H beam forged rods and forged pistons 8.5:1 factory stock). This isn't just a GT engine with a blower on it. It was made to handle boost, and lots of it. 18lbs boost on 92+ pump gas will make a high 10 second car on street radials and the engine is fine with it as long as you have the intercooler and fuel system improvements to support it. There are a few guys running twin turbos on the stock long block making upwards of 900 WHP.

Do some research on forced induction and EFI. The Toyota 2JZ-GTE engines are also known to be capable of sustaining 700 WHP on the stock internals. The weak link in both these systems is the drive train.

I've already said before in previous posts 700 whp is an estimate based on well known modifications and similarly equipped cars with the same "off the shelf" tune. It's a well known "magic number" for '03 Cobras. Just a blower and intake upgrade alone is worth breaking 600 whp on the stock fuel system. As for exact tuning, for me its ballpark, ie: have a custom chip burned based on previously tested modifications that have been performed on the car, since I don't know anyone with a dyno around here and I'm not willing to drive out of town just for a dyno run. So maybe its 'only' 680 WHP :roll: nothing that can't be remedied with a couple real dyno passes.

Unbelievable? Yes, of course it is, these cars are something else. They don't call it the "domestic Supra" for nothing.

As always, people to try to fabricate and justify impossibilities or downplay something they don't have or don't understand. The trend on these forums is basically "if it's not mine it has to be BS"

Quick Trivia:

Doubling the power of an engine does not double the stress on an engine. If this was the case we'd be seeing forced induction engines blowing up left and right and they wouldn't be offered on factory production cars. Running high boost in a engine results in an obvious increase in cylinder pressure, but that increased pressure is still well below the peak pressure that occurs in the cylinders before adding extra boost. Excessive heat and detonation is what destroys engines. Not power output.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: TuffGuy

Originally posted by: Excelsior
Of course you are, and so am I. I think you worry far too much about other peoples vehicles.

We're entitled to. SUVs pose a danger to smaller vehicles, they obstruct our view, they take up too much room and they consume so much gas that they're probably single handedly causing gas prices to go up.

It's not a matter of it costing more $ to go from point A to point B and whether or not you can afford it or not. It's a matter of using up twice as much fuel, polluting the air more, and most of the time they only have one occupant.

Cars pose a danger to motorcycles and bikes.

Please, THINK OF THE MOTORCYCLISTS.

It is sad that you actually believe the trucks and SUVs increase pollution by a considerable amount. Until we switch to a cleaner fuel, it doesn't matter what we drive.
And please provide some fact to backup your theory that suvs/trucks are causing gas prices to rise. :roll:

They do increase pollution by a significant amount. Guess what... if you're getting half the gas mileage, you're polluting twice as much.

Stop posting.

I'll refer you to exdeaths last post.

Thanks.

The "modern cars are more efficient than old cars" argument is ridiculous. For one thing, there are more cars on the road, and they are driving longer distances than ever before.

Thats right' and the majority of them are not SUVs despite the media focus on glorifying SUV sales because its trendy. You just hit the REAL problem: there are more cars period, not just SUVs. Before there were SUVs there were big heavy trucks with campers on them (ie: a SUV by todays standards) but nary a complaint. SUV bashing is just the latest elitist fad.

And again how many low income poorer people are driving around in beater 70s caddy's and crown vic's that weigh over 4000 lbs have a huge carbureted V8 engines (8+ liters by todays standards) spit raw fuel and smog out the exhaust, dont even require emissions testing, and get 8 mpg?

My first car was a 1968 Chrysler Town and Country station wagon. It weighed close to 5,000 lbs, had a 4 barrel topped 440ci V8 making something like 400 HP (nothing beats wasting college kids in mommy and daddy funded mustangs and camaros in a old beater wagon with the paint peeling off!). I put $20 a week in gas in it back when gas was under $1 /gal (late 90s). Lots of gas waste, but nobody complained, as my car wasn't expensive or shiny.

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: TuffGuy

Originally posted by: Excelsior
Of course you are, and so am I. I think you worry far too much about other peoples vehicles.

We're entitled to. SUVs pose a danger to smaller vehicles, they obstruct our view, they take up too much room and they consume so much gas that they're probably single handedly causing gas prices to go up.

It's not a matter of it costing more $ to go from point A to point B and whether or not you can afford it or not. It's a matter of using up twice as much fuel, polluting the air more, and most of the time they only have one occupant.

Cars pose a danger to motorcycles and bikes.

Please, THINK OF THE MOTORCYCLISTS.

It is sad that you actually believe the trucks and SUVs increase pollution by a considerable amount. Until we switch to a cleaner fuel, it doesn't matter what we drive.
And please provide some fact to backup your theory that suvs/trucks are causing gas prices to rise. :roll:

They do increase pollution by a significant amount. Guess what... if you're getting half the gas mileage, you're polluting twice as much.

Stop posting.

I'll refer you to exdeaths last post.

Thanks.

The "modern cars are more efficient than old cars" argument is ridiculous. For one thing, there are more cars on the road, and they are driving longer distances than ever before.

Thats right' and the majority of them are not SUVs despite the media focus on glorifying SUV sales because its trendy. You just hit the REAL problem: there are more cars period, not just SUVs. Before there were SUVs there were big heavy trucks with campers on them (ie: a SUV by todays standards) but nary a complaint. SUV bashing is just the latest elitist fad.

And again how many low income poorer people are driving around in beater 70s caddy's and crown vic's that weigh over 4000 lbs have a huge carbureted V8 engines (8+ liters by todays standards) spit raw fuel and smog out the exhaust, dont even require emissions testing, and get 8 mpg?

My first car was a 1968 Chrysler Town and Country station wagon. It weighed close to 5,000 lbs, had a 4 barrel topped 440ci V8 making something like 400 HP (nothing beats wasting college kids in mommy and daddy funded mustangs and camaros in a old beater wagon with the paint peeling off!). I put $20 a week in gas in it back when gas was under $1 /gal (late 90s). Lots of gas waste, but nobody complained, as my car wasn't expensive or shiny.

Actually I think light trucks outsell cars in the USA. Of course, car manufacturers sell car based cuted utes and minivans as "light trucks" to raise their average fleet gas mileage for trucks..
In any case, those ghetto hoopties you are talking about aren't that common. There are so few 8L cars anymore that it even matters, and those aren't the people doing the majority of driving.

 

[AdamK47]

Originally posted by: Glavinsolo
I won't make a new thread but I wanted to know why more torque than horsepower was a good thing. I have a scion tc and it has 163lbs of torque and 160hp. What should I notice in the car that makes this apparent?

You'll notice that your smile will turn upside down as you push the accelerator.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: TuffGuy

Originally posted by: Excelsior
Of course you are, and so am I. I think you worry far too much about other peoples vehicles.

We're entitled to. SUVs pose a danger to smaller vehicles, they obstruct our view, they take up too much room and they consume so much gas that they're probably single handedly causing gas prices to go up.

It's not a matter of it costing more $ to go from point A to point B and whether or not you can afford it or not. It's a matter of using up twice as much fuel, polluting the air more, and most of the time they only have one occupant.

Cars pose a danger to motorcycles and bikes.

Please, THINK OF THE MOTORCYCLISTS.

It is sad that you actually believe the trucks and SUVs increase pollution by a considerable amount. Until we switch to a cleaner fuel, it doesn't matter what we drive.
And please provide some fact to backup your theory that suvs/trucks are causing gas prices to rise. :roll:

They do increase pollution by a significant amount. Guess what... if you're getting half the gas mileage, you're polluting twice as much.

Stop posting.

I'll refer you to exdeaths last post.

Thanks.

The "modern cars are more efficient than old cars" argument is ridiculous. For one thing, there are more cars on the road, and they are driving longer distances than ever before.

Thats right' and the majority of them are not SUVs despite the media focus on glorifying SUV sales because its trendy. You just hit the REAL problem: there are more cars period, not just SUVs. Before there were SUVs there were big heavy trucks with campers on them (ie: a SUV by todays standards) but nary a complaint. SUV bashing is just the latest elitist fad.

And again how many low income poorer people are driving around in beater 70s caddy's and crown vic's that weigh over 4000 lbs have a huge carbureted V8 engines (8+ liters by todays standards) spit raw fuel and smog out the exhaust, dont even require emissions testing, and get 8 mpg?

My first car was a 1968 Chrysler Town and Country station wagon. It weighed close to 5,000 lbs, had a 4 barrel topped 440ci V8 making something like 400 HP (nothing beats wasting college kids in mommy and daddy funded mustangs and camaros in a old beater wagon with the paint peeling off!). I put $20 a week in gas in it back when gas was under $1 /gal (late 90s). Lots of gas waste, but nobody complained, as my car wasn't expensive or shiny.

Actually I think light trucks outsell cars in the USA. Of course, car manufacturers sell car based cuted utes and minivans as "light trucks" to raise their average fleet gas mileage for trucks..
In any case, those ghetto hoopties you are talking about aren't that common. There are so few 8L cars anymore that it even matters, and those aren't the people doing the majority of driving.

Light trucks and SUVs selling well is only a modern trend of the last few years. What about the millions of cars that have been sold new or bought used in the last 10 years before?

I don't care to dig up any actual sales statistics but I recall numbers in the 5 digit range (20,000 to 80,000); units of a particular SUV model sold in a year? Something like that?

As of 1972 there were 119 million automobiles in the US alone (project this out 30 more years, it will just be higher)
As of 2001 there were 3.1 million SUVs in the US.

Hmm...

As for "wasting" gas, even though oil pricing does not adhere to free market principles, the rest of economics still applies. Gas is a finite resource just like everything else on the planet and it is rationed and distributed by price just like everything else; those who are willing to pay for more get more if they choose. Everything runs out eventually and you get as much as you paid for before it runs out. Gasoline is no different.

Do you feel that someone who drinks more soda than you is wasting soda because they only *need* one?

There is not enough and never will be enough of ANYTHING on this planet. Gasoline is no different. You buy and use as much as you are willing to pay for. If you need more for a bigger car go for it. If you want to stockpile gasoline because it's going to run out, then buy a few barrels for yourself just like people buy 2 or more items on a sale that they don't need just because it will "run out"

 

[Killercavecow]

To the OP. Nice vehicle. I can surely appreciate the need for more room.

I just recently had a kid and with two dogs, the kid, and all the kid's gear to go visit family, the Nissan Altima wasn't big enough.

We did some research and went with a Toyota Sequoia. Man, its so much more comfortable. The kid has room without a dogs ass in his face, the wife and I have room to stretch our legs out, if we have another child, there is still plenty of room, its been a positive experience.

We get over 18 on the highway. I set the cruise and drive in between Spokane, WA and Lewiston, ID and there are a couple of good pulls, but pretty average highway. We got 18.2 on that trip. While, admittedly, its not the Nissan Altima's great mpg, the room and comfort level sure made up for a lot of it.

Emissions and milage is getting a lot better. If you took averages from 10, 20, and 30 years ago, the vehicles are showing strong gains in better miliage and cleaner emissions. Just because its not happened overnight to get to zero emissions, its no reason to bastardize someone for owning a certain vehicle.

If you really want to stop green house gases and save the environment, go nut yourself now. Have no kids, then you have done your part, and we'll all thank you.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: Glavinsolo
I won't make a new thread but I wanted to know why more torque than horsepower was a good thing. I have a scion tc and it has 163lbs of torque and 160hp. What should I notice in the car that makes this apparent?

Torque is the rotational force that causes acceleration. Power is what performs the mechanical work of moving the car forward.

Your car accelerates hardest at peak torque. Say you have 400 ft/lbs of torque at 3000 RPM and 6000 RPM. The car will accelerate just as hard at either 3000 RPM or 6000 RPM even though you might be making twice as much horsepower at 6000 RPM than 3000 RPM.

Horsepower is the ability to do work over time as a result of a given torque, or rather how that torque is used.

The relationship between torque, horsepower, and RPM and whats best has to do with desired road speed and gear ratios and is a little complicated to grasp at first.

Lets just say torque is what accelerates and horsepower is what makes you go fast. Lets say you have two cars making the same torque at similar RPM but one has higher peak horsepower at a higher RPM (lets say bigger cams or something).

Both cars will launch and feel equally fast. Both will pull you equally hard (same torque) but the one with higher peak horsepower will pull with that torque longer over a wider RPM range as the horsepower builds its way to its peak power RPM, while the other car with the same torque has less peak horsepower but reaches its peak power sooner, but it wont increase much further up the tach. Its a matter of do you want 400 HP from 2000 through 6000 RPM or are you willing to have only 250 HP at 2000 RPM in order to make 700 HP at 6000 RPM at the cost of taking longer to go from 2000 to 6000 RPM? You also have to think about transmission and differential gearing and if you have the ability to keep the engine in its narrow power band at the top of the tach because when you aren't making that peak power you might be making less power than a similar engine at a lower RPM.

In driving each car they will both pull with the same force and *feel* identically fast even though the one with higher horsepower is faster. The car making 400 lbs of torque and 500 HP at at 6000 RPM will NOT FEEL faster than a car making the same 400 lbs of torque but only making 400 HP. But it WILL BE faster because it utilizes that same torque to do more work by producing more peak power at the expense of taking longer to get there (ie: using the torque force for a longer time and distance).

So both are important, and like everything else, there is a delicate balance that depends on the performance characteristics you want.

For city street driving and pimp smacking people at lights, torque is more valuable because you want to get off the line and pull hard, but you hardly get to stay on the gas long and reach high speeds. Since you reach reasonable or legal speed limits very quickly, how long you pull with that torque isn't as important as it is in all out track drag racing or hitting top speed on the highway. Unless you have aspirations to be locked up for felony speeding and endangerment or wrecking your car or killing someone, go for bottom end torque instead of peak horsepower, thats what makes city driving and flooring it up on ramps fun, and its what takes the breath out of your lungs and strengthens your neck muscles

Shooting out of a stoplight when a ricer is revving next to you, torque wins because you just want to get to 55mph and prove your point and back off before he knows what hit him, and that doesn't take very long so you're not winding out with max horsepower and top speed. And again when you back off and slow to 45 and hes still pulling high revs trying to use his 50 ft-lbs torque and winding out to red line to keep going faster to catch up and pass you, you can use your torque to be off like a rocket quickly accelerating to match and exceed his speed and school him again. Since both of you will be stepping hard on the brakes in a few seconds anyway, its all about who can get there first, not who can go faster.

So in summary, if you have more torque you'll beat them off the line and pull hard on them, *BUT* if they have more peak horsepower they will still be accelerating and catching up while you've hit 85 mph in 6th gear at 6000 RPM and have nowhere else to go.

If you want to waste people from stoplight to stoplight and prevent them from getting in front of you (usually to signal that they just pwned you), go for bottom end torque since you don't have room to go very fast. (think dragster, Viper)

If you want to be uncatchable on the freeway where you have plenty of room to wind it out, even if it takes a while to get up there, go for peak horsepower. (think Formula 1 car, Ferrari).

Operating characteristics of engine air flow are drastically different at low and high speeds (RPMs) dictate that its one or the other (as well as gearing), you can't have the best of both, just like contrast and brightness in a screen are mutually exclusive. Balance. Balance. Balance. Or application, application, application.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: Glavinsolo
I won't make a new thread but I wanted to know why more torque than horsepower was a good thing. I have a scion tc and it has 163lbs of torque and 160hp. What should I notice in the car that makes this apparent?

Torque is the force that causes acceleration.

Your car accelerates hardest at peak torque. Say you have 400 ft/lbs of torque at 3000 RPM and 6000 RPM. The car will accelerate just as hard at either 3000 RPM or 6000 RPM even though you might be making twice as much horsepower at 6000 RPM than 3000 RPM.

Horsepower is the ability to do work over time as a result of a given torque, or rather how that torque is used.

The relationship between torque, horsepower, and RPM and whats best has to do with desired road speed and gear ratios and is a little complicated to grasp at first.

Lets just say torque is what accelerates and horsepower is what makes you go fast. Lets say you have two cars making the same torque at similar RPM but one has higher peak horsepower at a higher RPM.

Both cars will launch and feel equally fast. Both will pull you equally hard (torque) but the one with higher peak horsepower will pull with that torque longer over a wider RPM range. In other words, driving each car they will both pull and *feel* identically fast even though the one with higher horsepower is faster. The car making 400 lbs of torque and 500 HP at at 6000 RPM will NOT feel faster than a car making the same 400 lbs of torque but only making 400 HP. But it will BE faster because it utilizes that same torque to do more work.

So both are important, and like everything else, there is a delicate balance that depends on the performance characteristics you want. For street driving and pimp smacking people at lights, torque is more valuable because you want to get off the line and pull hard from the start. Since you reach reasonable speed limits very quickly, how long you pull with that torque isn't as important as it is in all out track drag racing or hitting top speed on the highway.

Stolen/paraphrased from someone's sig:

Horsepower is how fast you hit the wall.
Torque is how far you carry it with you.

- M4H

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: LikeLinus
"This one averages about 17-18" Riiiight. Believe it when I see it.

Exactly... I'm guessing closer to 12 around town.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: halik
oh yeah there's no way that car gets 17-18 avg. My dads V8 explorer weighs signifincaly less and he gets ~16.5mpg average

I averaged 22mpg in a '99 Eddie Bauer with the 302 CID V8 while on a trip. Driving around in normal mixed driving I'd average 18-ish with it. (Was my father's, used to borrow it all the time.)

ZV

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: TuffGuy

Originally posted by: Excelsior
Of course you are, and so am I. I think you worry far too much about other peoples vehicles.

We're entitled to. SUVs pose a danger to smaller vehicles, they obstruct our view, they take up too much room and they consume so much gas that they're probably single handedly causing gas prices to go up.

It's not a matter of it costing more $ to go from point A to point B and whether or not you can afford it or not. It's a matter of using up twice as much fuel, polluting the air more, and most of the time they only have one occupant.

Thank you.

Care to join the Anti-SUV Brigade?

I agree too. Can I join? I've hated them damned things for years.

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: halik
oh yeah there's no way that car gets 17-18 avg. My dads V8 explorer weighs signifincaly less and he gets ~16.5mpg average

I averaged 22mpg in a '99 Eddie Bauer with the 302 CID V8 while on a trip. Driving around in normal mixed driving I'd average 18-ish with it. (Was my father's, used to borrow it all the time.)

ZV

Unfortunately you had to endure driving around in an ugly SUV with almost zero off road ability and a terrible interior.

 

[blckgrffn]

FWIW, I like it. Superchargers FTW!

And awesome luxury with that kind of vehicle...

 

[CKent]

My new ride > yours.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: TuffGuy

Originally posted by: Excelsior
Of course you are, and so am I. I think you worry far too much about other peoples vehicles.

We're entitled to. SUVs pose a danger to smaller vehicles, they obstruct our view, they take up too much room and they consume so much gas that they're probably single handedly causing gas prices to go up.



It's not a matter of it costing more $ to go from point A to point B and whether or not you can afford it or not. It's a matter of using up twice as much fuel, polluting the air more, and most of the time they only have one occupant.

Cars pose a danger to motorcycles and bikes.

Please, THINK OF THE MOTORCYCLISTS.

It is sad that you actually believe the trucks and SUVs increase pollution by a considerable amount. Until we switch to a cleaner fuel, it doesn't matter what we drive.
And please provide some fact to backup your theory that suvs/trucks are causing gas prices to rise. :roll:

They do increase pollution by a significant amount. Guess what... if you're getting half the gas mileage, you're polluting twice as much.

Stop posting.

I'll refer you to exdeaths last post.

Thanks.

The "modern cars are more efficient than old cars" argument is ridiculous. For one thing, there are more cars on the road, and they are driving longer distances than ever before. In the 60s and 70s, people didn't drive 50 miles to work, even if they lived in the suburbs. Now, with the suburban expansion that's been happening since then, and continuing, there are loads of middle class white people commuting 1-3 hours a day in SUVs.
Unfortunately, if you're not smart enough to realize that spending hours driving daily is a waste of your life, you aren't smart enough to give a damn about conservation.

How does that last sentence have ANYTHING to do with what we are discussing here?

Jesus christ. :roll:

Because most people fail to realize that it's not so much what you drive as how much gas you actually use. I don't know if you realize this, but a Civic driving 1000 miles a week is using more fuel than a Suburban driving 150 miles a week.

Of course I do, thats why I think it is pointless for those to bash SUVs because they "use more gas" when in reality, they are a drop in the bucket compared to the millions of other cars that most of America drives.

So you actually agree with me then.

Excellent.

Edit: This is sort of OT, but as long as people can buy a bigger home for less money, pay less taxes, and have a garage/yard, they will move out to the suburbs. It just makes sense.

I too hate the fact that so many forests are being cutdown for these cookie cutter developments...but thats just life.