SUVs

L

laudanum

#1
#1
Just got this off a motorcycle list....

<http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0212.mencimer.html>

You gotta love a book review that starts with:
"Have you ever wondered why sport utility vehicle drivers seem like such assholes? "

I personally hate minivan drivers as well, or maybe its just our American mentality to feel the need to drive our living room couches on the roads.

enjoy!!

Laudanum
 
H

Hot Dog

#2
#2
laudanum,

I agree with you on the SUV issues. Another reason I'm not so hot on them is their gas consumption. Since they are technically trucks they do not have to adhere to same pollution and MPG guidelines that normal passenger vehicles have to.

As far as I am concerned anyone driving an SUV is indirectly funding terrorism since we know how our "friends" the Saudis spend their money. People just don’t stop and think about it every time they pull up to the gas pump.
 
S

Shoot2Thrill

#3
#3
To even remotely think SUV's have any relationship to terrorism and oil shortages is really absurd.


car company credo--- we are here to make money

oil company credo -- we are here to make money

Terrorist credo -- we are assholes
 
H

Hot Dog

#5
#5
Now boys I’m no economist so you will have to bear with me here for a minute as I make my points and perhaps you will see my reasoning

1) It is a fact that SUVs get a lower MPG than passenger vehicles. Therefore if you have two drivers (one SUV, one passenger vehicle) over a set time period drive the same number of miles you will see that the SUV driver will consume more gas than the passenger vehicle.

2) The United States gets most of it’s crude oil from foreign sources. Yes I do know that oil is a fungible asset but the majority of it comes from various Middle Eastern states.

3) Several of these Middle Eastern states are at best not on good terms with the United States, or more than likely funding terrorist and their activities. I am sure everyone has read in the papers about the allegations that the Saudis financing the 9/11 hijackers. Well even if you do not believe that. Ben Laden a member of the Saudi royal family got his money from someplace; the tooth fairy didn’t give him his millions to finance his campaign against America. Now if you don’t believe me on this item, I suggest you pick the Wall Street Journal and start reading it. If you want I can even go to Iran and Iraq on their positions towards the U.S. but I don’t want to drone on.

Now if you take items 2, and 3 you can plainly see that the more oil is consumed and paid for, the more money is funneled in to states at best are not sympathetic to the United States and at worst actually financing campaigns against America and it’s citizens.

We can conclude that consuming more oil is bad, because of the previous paragraph. We can also conclude activities increasing the demand of oil within this country are bad. Namely producing trucks that are not needed which consume more gas than automobiles increasing our dependence on foreign oil. Is this such a difficult concept? Or am I missing something in you’re eloquent responses?

Please feel free to point out any errors in my argument.
 
H

Hot Dog

#7
#7
No need to insult me. I'd rather suck your dick than be Al Gore!!!! or be associated with anyone in the democratic party. Woops did I let that slip out

But that's just my opinion, that and $1.50 will get you on the subway
 
Last edited:
R

redleg609

#8
#8
Hot Dog;

There are are a lot of variables involved here in you arguement.

However consider this, and I present no special statistics to support my notions - of course, neither do you.

You say SUV gasoline consumption adds to $ available to Terrorist Activities.

First question, what % of $ are due to SUV - ie, (SUV mpg * SUv Miles Drive [SUVMD]) less (fleet avg MPG * SUVMD) as a total of Gasoline $ world wide [WW]. Good question huh?

Second. What percent of total gasoline sales WW do you think go into terrorist activities?

Third - what % of terrorist dollars are, then, attributal to SUVs.


Now suppose there were no more SUV.

Would the contributions terrorists decline?
Would crude oil prices rise to make up the difference?

What do you think?
 
J

justme

homo economicus
#10
#10
SUV's are as responsible for terrorism as drug useage (although we've only seen commercials making one of those two claims).

What SUV's are responsible for, however, is decreasing average fuel economy. This is simple fact backed up by statistics from DoT and EPA. After the oild crisis of the 70's, the Unites States wisely decided that dependence on foriegn oil in maintaining our infrastructure was a key strategic manuever. Dependence crippled foriegn policy, and created internal operations risk that was inherently political. The efforts to reduce this dependency were myriad, but one fairly effective measure was regulating the automotive industry into producing increasingly fuel efficient automobiles. The way the government did this was ingenious. Auto manuafcturers could go on marketing gas guzzlers to the elite and pwerful that wanted to cruise around in six tons of steel or speed around in exotic sportscars (of course they'd have to pay a gas guzzler tax... but they could afford it). All an automobile manufacturer had to do was insure that they're overall fleet of cars sold reached a magic number. This workled out great as manufacturures began to design highly efficient, low cost of ownership automobiles. Over time, our gas usage stabalized despite the fact that more and more vehicles were on the road. At the time the regulation was pushed through, however, manufacturures correctly pointed out that they would not be able to hit target efficiency numbers if work trucks were included. Work trucks are highly powerful machines designed to haul and move. The government understood that the economy depended on these vehicles and made an exception for them.

Of course, every exception is an opportunity for abuse. And so SUV's, which are clearly passenger vehicles by any stretch of the imagination are now classified as work trucks. The result has been a sharp decline in overall fuel efficiency as SUV's have flooded the market. And of course, lower fuel efficience means greater oil usage and greater dependence on foriegn oil.

To me, the importance of establishing independance from foriegn energy is as important strategically today as it ever was. Economists dream of a global marketplace, but as long as there are political divisions, it remains dangerous to remain dependant on any foriegn entity for any crucial part of the economy. (I think this current trend of moving our manufacturing base out of the country is just about the stupidest thing this country's done lately... and considering the stupidity that abounds these days...) While Hot Dog's posts are clearly sensationalist and exhibit a certain lack of rigourous thought, his gut instinct that SUV's and their effect on our depenance on foriegn oil are bad for the country is spot on.

There was a pretty good editorial written by Carter's former DoE head about six months ago on this very topic.
 
H

Hot Dog

#11
#11
Redleg,

You make some very good points. You wanted some facts and numbers well I have few over here in broad strokes. Like I said I’m not and Economist so I can’t give you exact information.

After checking carpoint I was able so see most larger SUVs get about a city mpg of 14 and 18 on the highway. In contrast to my car (which is not a small car) which gets a city mpg of 22 and 30 on the highway. So as you can see there is a 36-40% difference in gas mileage.

Also after looking at several articles I found in the net, they indicate that 1 out of 7 automobiles is an SUV. Even though I found this information myself I think these numbers are bullshit. I live on Long Island and these numbers seem a little low, all you have to do is take a look in any parking lot to see this. I would say it would be more like 1 of out every 5 or 6 cars. But that’s just me, I could be wrong.

Now how many miles do these SUVs drive and how much additional gas is consumed because of them? I don’t have an answer for you on that but let me put it to you this way. On my way to work I pass by countless roach coaches selling their coffee and sweet rolls (I have a soft spot for them). I can stand to lose a few pounds, do I know how many calories are in one? No, I don’t. But I do know I am better off not eating one every morning.

As far as if oil consumption if reduce world wide one of the basic laws of economics that I do know is supply and demand. The greater the supply and less demand will mean a lower price. Yes historically cartels in this case OPEC can price fix, but typically the cartel members break ranks and lower prices on their own.

How much does this add to WW oil consumption for terrorism? I don’t know but I do know this either (boy I don’t know a lot of stuff!) . But as I said as a joke “Ben Laden isn’t getting his money from the tooth fairy”. The overall point I was trying to make is that we as Americans should attempt to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. That way we can tell those dam Arabs to go fuck themselves.


PS: One Eye Trouser – I think I’d have to get Hillary’s permission, lmao
 
M

mitchmaxx

#12
#12
So I guess it would be better for me to take 2 cars instead of one SUV when I take my family out? If you have more than 5 peolpe in your family what are you supposed to do?
 
R

Reel Deal

#13
#13
You're right. SUV's are as bad as drugs. They both cause terrorism.

Time to trade mine in on a V-10 TurboDiesel F650 dualie...with a missle launcher...
 
H

Hot Dog

#14
#14
Justme.

I will admit my post is somewhat sensationalistic. But sometimes I find you have to be that way to get some peoples attention on what I feel is an important topic. As far as the lack of rigorous thought, I will freely admit I am not the brightest bulb on the porch. To quote the robot in Lost in Space, "I can lift heavy objects"

I am not the best writer and as you indicated that I go with my gut on a lot of stuff. I bow to you’re superior intellect and thank you for your tactical air support.
 
M

mitchmaxx

#16
#16
What about safety? If I were to get in an accident with my kids in the car, I'd much rather be in my Navigator than in a Camery. I actually ride a motorcycle in the spring and summer, not to save energy, just cause I like to ride.
 
J

jseah

#18
#18
Originally posted by Hot Dog
Actually Mitch I am considering selling out and moving up to a minivan for the wife and kids. But miivans still get better mpg than suvs
Click to expand...
Minivans are notorious for having horrible crash safety ratings. Not saying that SUV's are any better, but your typical SUV is better compared to your typical mini-van. Way back when, my ex lost control on a rain slick freeway, ran into the center median and actually knocked down two trees while driving my SUV. Caused almost $13G in damage to the SUV, but due to the rigid "truck" frame of the SUV, neither her, nor my infant daughter (at the time) was injured.
 
J

justme

homo economicus
#19
#19
Mitch, your arguments are valid and that's why it does no good to chastise the consumer for this phenomenon. Of course you are going to buy the safest, most convenient vehicle that is on the market. I wouldn't expect you to do any differently. But in situation when everyone's pursuing their own best interests creates an overall scenario where everyone's interests are harmed, it is important to have a high level decision that brings about a better equilibrium.

And so, it's up to governement to close the ridiculous SUV loophole, and continue to make automobile manufacturers responsible for increasing fuel efficiency. With regulatory pressure, I'm sure auto makers will find a way to bring more fuel efficient SUVs to the market. If the technology is more expensive, it will just be an example of passing on the true cost of incresed independance to the people that are receiving the convenience.


Hot Dog - Sometimes I come off like an arrogant ass. It's mostly because I'm an arrogant ass. Still, I do feel bad about it, and I'm truly sorry for comming off so condescending to you.
 
J

jseah

#20
#20
I'm sorry, but claiming that SUV's are responsible for terrorism is like saying that firearms are responsible for the high rate of gun violence (don't mean to start up another incendiary topic). You can't blame an inanimate object for the choices and actions of the consumer.

Back in the 70's when the price of gasoline skyrocketed and stations started doing rationing (even days, odd days), that tolled the beginning of the end for the big American cars and brought into the mainstream the cheap, light Japanese cars with their great gas mileage. The American manufacturers, to stem the hemorrhage of sales dollars going overseas, climbed onto the fuel efficient bandwagon and produced the K car, J car, offering cars that ran on diesel, etc.

Fast forward to the present, the cheap gasoline (adjusting for inflation, gasoline today is cheaper than back in the 70's) nowadays give people the option to choose with their pocketbook and people are following the axiom of "bigger is better" and purchasing "gas guzzling" SUV's.

Also, OPEC, after years of artificially buoying the price of petroleum by reducing production, has been fighting amongst themselves. This has led to a destabilization of crude prices and an abundance of supply.

Let's face it......if gas sold at the pump at $2.00+ per gallon, how do you think how well SUV's would sell at the dealerships? We need to admit that, compared to the rest of the civilized world, we are spoiled when it comes to the prices at the pump (gas in Europe sells for more than double what we pay here).

I remember a few years back, a close friend on mine, came to the US from London on a two year assignment with my company. Upon his arrival, the first thing he did was to purchase a big, gas-guzzling, American muscle car (a 1971 Olds 442). He got, if he was lucky, 6 miles to the gallon and would spend $40-50 per week on gas. I thought this was excessive, as my gas budget for TWO cars was about half of his, but in his perspective, this was the same amount that he paid in the UK to gas up his Honda on a regular basis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top