BS: Seen the SUV = Terrorism Ad?

Subject: BS: Seen the SUV = Terrorism Ad?
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 11 Jan 03 - 02:04 PM

I saw an ad today that's slated to be shown across the country. McLaughlin Group aired it, as the conservatives slumped... It equates excessive oil use and dependence... unspeakable delight for me... I hope it is getting out! Anyone seen it? Whadya think? ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Seen the SUV = Terrorism Ad?
From: GUEST,Q
Date: 11 Jan 03 - 02:26 PM

Ridiculous "ad." Hauling two dogs and gear to the children's homes in cities up to three hours away, there is nothing else that will do it in comfort. Four-wheel drive is also a big help here in winter. Nothing better for hauling kids and all their gear to an out-of-town hockey match.
One son likes to bike in Utah-Arizona; his SUV provides sleeping accomodations for two, and is ideal for the long trip from Canada.
Gasoline is cheap, even with recent increases. There is nothing to replace the SUV. Compare gas mileage with a large comfortable car and there is little difference.

Subject: RE: BS: Seen the SUV = Terrorism Ad?
From: Beccy
Date: 11 Jan 03 - 02:28 PM

I would say that our dependence may create some difficulties. How about searching for oil in our own territory? I'm all for finding the Holy Grail of energy sources, but for now, I will not countenance destroying our economy in the name of the oil bogeyman.

Subject: RE: BS: Seen the SUV = Terrorism Ad?
From: DonMeixner
Date: 11 Jan 03 - 02:35 PM

I own a minivan and I heard recently that it was considered an SUV.

I have always called SUVs Urban Assault Vehicles, not original but apt perhaps. I think the Terrorist Connection is just as ridiculous as a Motorcycle/Terrorist or Boat/Terrorist connection. The fact is we use a lot of oil. Some comes from the desert.

In Argentina's ill advuised war with GB for the Falkland(Maldives) Island Argentina powered it's army on bio oil. Sunflower as I recall but I could be miss remembering this. I remember hearing it behaves very much like diesel fuel without remarkable effort in refining.

Imagine the US with an agrarian economy again. I don't know that it is fiscally possible but lately if some one in the government, on the radio, or in the paper told me it wasn't, I'd think they were lying.

Don

Subject: RE: BS: Seen the SUV = Terrorism Ad?
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jan 03 - 02:56 PM

As a hardcore environmentalist, I think this ad campaign is a really bad idea. It totally lets the car makers and the oil companies off the hook, and blames those who buy the vehicles for their fuel inefficiency and terrible emissions. It also lets local, state, and federal governments off the hook for their failures to police these practices as they should have, and for their failures to develop well funded and maintained transportation alternatives, urban and suburban planning around jobs and home, that sort of thing.

All this will do is make environmentalists who have been trying to work with government and industry for years to change our habits and lifestyles, look like morons that even more people will love to hate.

Don't blame the drives of SUVs and mini-vans for choosing the vehicles. Blame the car makers and the oil industry who benefit from those gas hogs and ozone killers, and the government for failing to do it's job in providing leadership in the area of transportation, energy policy, and urban and suburban planning and development.

Subject: RE: BS: Seen the SUV = Terrorism Ad?
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 11 Jan 03 - 03:55 PM

Excellent posts all! ...'just breaking the ice', I'd be heard saying... Personally, I'm roughly aligned with B Fuller, and his assertion that we're squandering our "Global energy bank account" as we consume our finite planetary reserves... as fast as we possibly can...

Admittedly, the SUV term is a gross generalisation, yet so too is the notion that a multi-use vehicle, with lots of room, can't get good mileage...

I don't think I need to remind anyone here how heavily oil is subsidised in the US... keeping consumer costs artificially low... and, I might add, keeping our lifestyles oil dependent. Market forces are not at work here.

Thoughts... tuppence for yours, ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Seen the SUV = Terrorism Ad?
From: Peg
Date: 11 Jan 03 - 05:05 PM

I disagree that "nothing will do but an SUV" for long trips (though frankly the main problem is that the vast majority of people who drive these monstrosities are those who use them for city and suburban driving; even lower mileage! I have no problem with peopel who use them for what they were deisgned for...but virtually no one does).

A Subaru Outback is roomy, is available with 4-wheel drive and is an excellent car in terms of of overall value and mileage. My friends who live in Vermont (where they have real weather) swear by them.

If "nothing else will do" in terms of comfort what on earth did people do before SUVs? Suffer?

It's like people who think they just can't get by without using their cell phones while driving...five years ago we'd have laughed at such a notion...

Subject: RE: BS: Seen the SUV = Terrorism Ad?
From: NicoleC
Date: 11 Jan 03 - 05:29 PM

Oh please. I admit that GUEST 02:56 has a point -- the lion's share of responsibility sits squarely on the shoulders of the manufacturers who refuse to address either safety concerns of efficiency of SUV's (even though the technology exists) and our lovely elected officials who refuse to use the legal system when the manufacturers fail (because they live off the campaign donations of oil-related companies.)

And yet, the only folks I see travelling in groups of more that one in monstrous SUVs are mexican immigrants who LOVE the old Suburbans. I routinely see 7 or 8 packed into an SUV commuting to work. When used like this, even less efficient vehicles are environmentally friendly. Instead, it's typically a small, petite blond, by herself, cluelessly chatting away on her cell phone on her way to the grocery store because her husband wanted to buy himself a bigger p--- can I say that on Mudcat?

And quite frankly, when I travel my VW Golf rides better, drives better, is equally comfortable, and gets 3-4x the gas milage of a larger SUV. You make it from Sacramento to LA on a 10 gallon tank of gas in one of those. Ha!

I think the SUV-Terrorist connection is as valid as the supposed drugs-terrorist connection. Maybe the car manufacturers who irresponsibly put 8 mpg passenger vehicles on the road should advertise, "Buy an Excursion -- Kill a US soldier!"

Subject: RE: BS: Seen the SUV = Terrorism Ad?
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Jan 03 - 05:36 PM

This is the Hyundai Santa Fe SUV...

Click

This is a press release from Hyundai about their hydrogen powered fuel cell Santa Fe SUV...

Click

This press release from the California Fuel Cell Partnership announces the opening of the first satellite
hydrogen fueling station in that state...

Click

Pretty cool, huh?

(For those who might say "but it requires electricity to make the fuel cell", there are environmentally friendly ways to produce plenty of electricity.)

Subject: RE: BS: Seen the SUV = Terrorism Ad?
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jan 03 - 05:45 PM

"I think the SUV-Terrorist connection is as valid as the supposed drugs-terrorist connection."

Point is, neither of them are valid comparisons. They are both misleading, and that misleading will lead people directly to the wrong conclusions.

Of course there is no justification for the size of SUVs, vans, and mini-vans, based upon the ways they are typically used, ie as commuter and round town to the grocery store vehicles with one or two passengers. The advertising departments of the car makers have made sure the reason why people really want to own them is related to proving their status within the status quo.

However, there are some large families that make excellent use of the space, besides Mexicans (ahem). Also, many schools, nonprofits, nursing homes, etc use them for transporting multiple passengers. For this purpose, they have no equal--you really can't fit that many adult passengers in the small, more energy efficient vehicles. Another important use for those who drive the larger vehicles IS comfort for those with disabilities and/or who are large sized. Tell a man who is six foot 5, and 200+ pounds to commute an hour or two a day in a VW Golf, and I think you are taking your life into your own hands. Ditto for someone with a disability or chronic pain syndrome from a bad back, legs, whatever.

This idiotic commercial is just taking the cheap shots (I've seen it), which makes the environmental movement look as bad on the environment as Bush looks on civil rights and foreign policy. Charles Rangel, the African American Congressional Rep pushing for reinstatement to the draft, who put in a clause saying women should be drafted (of course they should in terms of equity, but then women should also get paid equitably vis a vis men for performing the same class of job, but they don't), and that everyone should be required to do a mandatory 2 years of public service, well. He is starting to look worse--even more draconian! than Republicans, all to serve his personal, narrow self-interest among his black constituency.

And Democrats wonder why they can't get elected, take back control of the government from the Republicans, and wonder why people are fleeing the party in droves to other parties who seem less...imbecilic. There we go. Not just stupid, not just idiotic. Imbecilic.

Subject: RE: BS: Seen the SUV = Terrorism Ad?
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 11 Jan 03 - 06:15 PM

Guest 5:45,

I'm sorry, but I'm laughing very hard... and it isn't with you... I find your arguements to be as dated and shortsighted as the soliloquy about the deliciousness of ice cream would be to a kid who had just dropped his cone...   

The commercial drives home a very valid point and some (maybe you, guest?) have their ears wide shut. It's not about SUV's at all... it is about the reality of our war dance... It's all about the oil! Duh! And the fact is, our US lifestyle is absolutely unsustainable without it! ... at least untill we face, and listen, to the physicists... We can do better, energy does not need to be represented by the essence of consolidated wealth and corruption, does it? ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Seen the SUV = Terrorism Ad?
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jan 03 - 06:27 PM

Keep laughing Thomas. But I hear your laugh as a maniacal laugh in the wilderness of environmentalists with no fucking clue on how to reach their fellow citizens besides beating them over the head with their own bad behavior. It didn't work in high school, and it sure won't work to prevent another Gulf War for oil. In fact, with the political climate as charged as it is, I'd say the ability for this commercial to result in the same sort of backlash as we saw against the Wellstone campaign and the Democrats in Minnesota for Rick Kahn's speech.

It is stunts like this that can sink the current anti-war movement, just as it is gaining it's momentum. An anti-war movement full of new people who want and need to be educated on these problems that they know they are contributing to with their consumer behaviors. But they aren't going to quit it all cold turkey, now are they? And if you come down holier than thou on them like a ton of bricks, what do you suppose the result of that will be?

If the purpose of this commercial is to whip up anti-war support, it will fail miserably at it. If it's purpose is to educate the public, it also fails miserably. Why? Because if you aren't currently driving a gas hog, you know a lot of people who are, and you don't appreciate the fact that holier-than-thou environmentalists are wagging their fingers at you, telling you you are bad, bad Americans for driving your SUV. That is just pandering to patriotic jingoism.

Subject: RE: BS: Seen the SUV = Terrorism Ad?
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Jan 03 - 06:36 PM

Here's a quote from the website of stuartenergy, the Canadian company that is providing the technology for the hydrogen fuelling stations in California. (Way to go Canada! Message to America: if you snooze, you loose!)

stuartenergy

Corporate Information

Stuart Energy has a proud, 54-year history as a pioneering organization in hydrogen technology research, development and product engineering. The vision for distributed, on-site creation of hydrogen through water electrolysis began with Alexander T. Stuart in 1905, and began to be commercially realized when he and his son, Alexander K. (Sandy) Stuart, the current chairman, formed the Company in 1948.

Today, the Stuart Energy vision is one of the industry's driving forces that is ushering in the new hydrogen economy. As a result, we are strongly positioned with a first-mover advantage in the rapidly expanding hydrogen marketplace. We are in a race to become the global leader in building the infrastructure for the emerging hydrogen economy and we are focused on our strategic goal of meeting the world 's growing demand for hydrogen as a safe, clean, secure and sustainable source of energy.

© Stuart Energy Systems Corporation, 2002, All rights reserved.

Subject: RE: BS: Seen the SUV = Terrorism Ad?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jan 03 - 06:44 PM

Actually, one can live very nicely with neither an SUV nor a cellular phone. I do. One just has to be willing to, that's all. I lived happily without a computer or a car for 3 weeks recently in Trinidad too. It was great! If people act as a loving and supportive community, rather than as isolated, lonely individuals protected only by their money, then all kinds of wonderful things are possible. Imagine the saving in money (and space) that is possible when 30 or 40 adults share one or two computers, one or tow cellular phones, and 3 or 4 vehicles...and do most of their daily work where they live.

But try explaining that in the society whose functioning credos are: "Give me Convenience or Give me Death" & "Look Out for Number One(and to hell with the rest...)"

The reason I'm on the computer a lot here is, I don't have a community like that available here (that I know of...). So I settle for a cyber-community for the time being, plus a few friends here and there around town. When I find a real working community to be part of, I tend to abandon my computer addiction.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Seen the SUV = Terrorism Ad?
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Jan 03 - 06:53 PM

Well, danged! I loved the ad myself and the "What would Jesus drive?" ad as well but, perhaps for different reasons. Yeah, that danged things are dangerous, especially in the hands of folks who know nothing about basic steering geometry. And ya' know what? Ya' stick an ordinary good citizen behind the wyheel of one and Mr. or Mrs. Ordinary Citizen becomes this real rude person who thinks he or she owns the road.

Now I'll be the first to admit that there are a lot of folks in this country find the SUV to be *just the car* for them anfd in mnay cases they are right. But, why sell the danged thing in areas where four wheel drive ain't ever needed except at the local tractor pulls.

One other observation I have made it that the auto manufacturers have this new hybrid looking thing coming out that is ann SUV in all r4espects except that the third seat is a 4 1/2 foot pickup truck bed. Hmmmmmm. Ol Bobert sniffin' a marketing conspiracy here. No that the market has been saturated with SUV's here comes another generation of FST's (Family Sport Trucks) or whatever they're gonna call 'em and so now Joe Six-pack is gonna have to trade in his 3 year old SUV for a FST if he wants to maintain his *cool* status.

I got 2 vehilcles. A 13 year old Toyota Camry with 192,000 miles and a 28 year old Dodge M880 (Army) truck with 4 wheel drive and no power steering for when it snows. If I have it my way, I'll be driving the same two clunks in 10 years, thank you...

Ahhhhh, anyone know what Bush drives back at the ranch?

How about bin Laden?

Saddam?

Nevermind........

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Seen the SUV = Terrorism Ad?
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 11 Jan 03 - 06:55 PM

Holy-er than thou? Read your own post, guest. Nice wings! Hey, sorry if I put on the heat, there guest, I'm overreacting, and I'll quit it now... I was happy to see the ad, because the US media has been so successful in hiding the most humanitarian issues ...health care for citizens, the economy, homelessness, poverty, overseas wars, oil dependence, Aids, corporate flight, Gangs in the streets, government/buisness corruption, etc etc...behind 'mock' issues... I was happy to see 'at least one thought provoking thing' could make it through the mammoth and totalitarian tyranny media has become... IMHO... ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Seen the SUV = Terrorism Ad?
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jan 03 - 06:55 PM

That is all very good stuff CarolC. But it ain't working on the scale it needs to work in the so-called Western democracies. The reason why it isn't is because the robber barons are the governments, and the governments are the robber barons.

At some point, people have to accept that the problems we face are almost exclusively the result of political graft and corruption. These things are somewhat cyclical, but we are living in a very bad patch of it, and have been since WWII. The ascendancy of Reagan/Bush robber barons in the 80s pretty much nailed the coffin shut. And those robber barons own our fifth estate--the media. The media conglomerates, which also obtain incredible free privleges, like free access and control over the government regulated airwaves, are also robber barons, working in collusion with the military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about, who now own all the corrupt politicians from local planning councils to the White House.

Organized religion is in cahoots with them as well, as the recent Catholic Church scandal showed. Not too many sermons being preached about political corruption from the Western democracies' churches, synagogues, temples etc. are there?

What is going to be required, and required on a global scale (which is why I am so hopeful about the ways the internet can still be used to organize against political and business and religious corruption), is mass non-cooperation by the citizens in the democracies of the world. If we don't stand up for ourselves, and our fellow human beings in countries where such political activities would result in mass arrests and murders, than there truly is no hope for the future beyond some of the Blade Runner sorts of dire futurist scenarios.

Think it can't happen here? Well, it won't for now, but how does the future look right now for our grandchildren, when fossil fuels run out in about 2050-2100?

Subject: RE: BS: Seen the SUV = Terrorism Ad?
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jan 03 - 07:07 PM

Thomas, I am much more cynical about why I think the media moguls have allowed this commercial to run. I think the ad is being allowed to run in the same way they throw us a few bones now and then--to make it appear as though they AREN'T censoring debate on real issues. So, IMO, the ads are about double, triple, quadruple harmful when one starts to realize the waves that move out from it.

People who are tired of always seeing the bad guys win will feel vindicated "just to see it get through this one time". Is that who we are running the ad for? I think so. I think it was run by naive environmentalists, to make themselves feel better about the fact that we are losing really badly right now, and alienating a whole lot of people who might have come around, if someone hadn't started lecturing them like their mother or their 10th grade algebra teacher for talking out of turn.

Reasonable enlightened minds can, of course, disagree. Just not with me. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Seen the SUV = Terrorism Ad?
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jan 03 - 07:17 PM

Look at the reaction to Sean Penn's ad in the NYT? Or was it the Washington Post? Anyway. Just because celebs like Sean Penn and Adrianna Huffington can raise enough capital to run a commercial or an ad every now and then, doesn't mean it is the right tactic to use to beat our enemies and win the whole shootin' match.

I'm concerned with using tactics that really work to the job that needs doing. Not naive grasping at straws to preach to the choir and make ourselves feel better about losing. There is much too much at stake right nowl. Remember, they still have all the guns, bombs, planes, and tanks, we don't. The CEOs own the judges, the editors, the heads of agencies whose mission is to keep the CEOs in check, etc etc etc. We have to be a whole lot craftier and smarter than them. I don't think copying their commercials being used to provide them with cover so no one sees the so-called war on drugs is the same war as the war on terrorism is the same war as the war on the environment is the same war as the war on civil and human rights, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Seen the SUV = Terrorism Ad?
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Jan 03 - 07:36 PM

Like I said; if you snooze, you lose. (Only I spelled it wrong before.)

We can choose to make ourselves irrelevant and a global pain in the ass if we (and the media moguls) want to. But we do have choices. That's the point I was making with my previous posts in this thread. If we, the little people, know what the choices are, we are more empowered to help make change if we want to. If the US, as a nation, doesn't lead the world with the new technologies, someone else will. And then those people will have the US by the balls rather than the other way around.

Plus, I think it's safe to say that unless they're faced with no other alternative, the majority of people in the US will keep the lifestyle they are currently enjoying. If they are provided with "earth friendly" ways of doing that, they will be much more motivated to make choices that will benefit the planet and all of humankind. Enlightened self interest is the most powerful motivator there is.

If you take a look at the names of the companies in the link for the California Fuel Cell Partnership, you'll see that some pretty major corporations are starting to recognize the money making potential of these new technologies.

Subject: RE: BS: Seen the SUV = Terrorism Ad?
From: toadfrog
Date: 11 Jan 03 - 07:37 PM

1. The media moguls allow this to run because they are paid to allow it. You have to be a whole lot more controversial than that to get everyone to refuse your money. But I'll bet there are stations in Detroit that won't run it.
2. Of course the "terrorist" connection, on its face, is dumb. Except that it is a knock off of the "drugs and terrorism" ads, which makes it brilliant.
3. I suppose Detroit and the oil companies are to blame for the SUV's . So also are the people who drive them. Plenty of blame to go around.

Subject: RE: BS: Seen the SUV = Terrorism Ad?
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Jan 03 - 07:41 PM

Let me rephrase:

I think it's safe to say that unless they're faced with no other alternative but to change, the majority of people in the US will keep the lifestyle they are currently enjoying.

Subject: RE: BS: Seen the SUV = Terrorism Ad?
From: GUEST,Q
Date: 11 Jan 03 - 07:44 PM

Some figures from the government. The "green" ratings are based on both mileage and emissions. CA= Calif. specs. Emissions
I looked up a few:
VW Passat                City 17    Hwy 24 green
VW Jetta wagon          city 24    Hwy 31 green 6-7
Subaru Forrester; Legacy    C 22    Hwy 27         6-7
Porsche Boxter             C 19    Hwy 27          6
Porsche Carrera             C 17    Hwy 25          6
Lincoln Town Car            C 18    Hwy 25         6
Lincoln Navigator 4WD SUV   C12    Hwy 16          1
Mercedes ML320             C 17    Hwy 21      1-4(CA) Bad Emissions
Mercedes E320 Wagon         C 20    Hwy 28       7
Lexus LX 470                C13    Hwy 16       0-2(CA)
Lexus RX 300 4WD          C18    HWY 22         6
Jeep Cherokee (disc.)       C 17    Hwy 22         4
Jeep Gr. Cherokee          C 16    Hwy 20         5
Ford Victoria               C 18    Hwy 25         6 often Taxi
Ford Taurus                C 20    Hwy 27         6
Ford Explorer (old model)   C 16    Hwy 19         4
Chrysler T+C AWD            C 17    Hwy 22         4
Chrysler Concorde          C 20    Hwy 28         6
Chev Suburban 2WD          C 14    Hwy 18       0-3(CA) Farmer's taxi
Chev Silverado 1/2T 1500    C 15    Hwy 22         4
Cadillac Deville            C 17    Hwy 27         6
BMW 525i                   C 19    Hwy 27         6

What the green ratings mean is a matter of debate. Didn't bother with the mini-cars.

Subject: RE: BS: Seen the SUV = Terrorism Ad?
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 11 Jan 03 - 07:46 PM

Ultimatly, they answer to us, remember? The sheer reality represented by one little creative ad, causing some to lose their composure, is sad... I wish there were ten or fifteen a day... reminders that honest questions can make us stronger... and that politicians and war machine alike, are servants of the people... remember? Sure, I know you did! ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Seen the SUV = Terrorism Ad?
From: GUEST,Q
Date: 11 Jan 03 - 07:46 PM

Not lined up, but the green rating is the last figure The Passat is rated 6. The scale is 0-10.

Subject: RE: BS: Seen the SUV = Terrorism Ad?
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jan 03 - 08:01 PM

To me, the only question that matters is, not how can I buy a fuel efficient car for myself, but how can we change the policies that allow all our nations to consume resources and pollute the planet at the rate we are currently doing it?

Having a handful of environmentally minded folks driving around in fuel cell cars and mini-cars won't effect the problems, because the problems are so much bigger, and more complex than just what we personally drive. People are going to have to get their heads around a whole lot more than MPGs and fuel combustion engines to turn this thing around, and frankly, I don't see how pointing the fingers at the drivers, selfish and myopic and stupid as many of them undoubtedly already are, will contribute to changing any minds or behaviors about the problems either. So then my question is, could this money have been better spent going to an effective environmental organization, rather than the media moguls?

Subject: RE: BS: Seen the SUV = Terrorism Ad?
From: Mudlark
Date: 11 Jan 03 - 08:04 PM

I agree that the deck is stacked heavily against us, politically, financially. ..which makes an extra good case, then, for personal responsiblity. In this mild climate, when I see an SUV being driven by a single person, not a spot of dust on it, sporting an American flag on the antenna, my assumption is that a bad choice has been made for the planet by an unthinking, uncaring consumer.

My husband was 6'5, I am 5'2, we both fit very nicely in the '88 Camry station wagon I still drive. In it I have carried luggage and bulky instrument cases plus 3 dogs, enough pottery plus display modules for a 3 daiy show, hay and feed sacks...and it gets over 30 mpg.

SUV's have nearly driven the stationwagon out of existence. SUV buyers have bought into market hype, trendiness, and image. Drivers, especially those who can afford the astronomical initial cost and remain indifferent to the use of fuel, like the higher profile-- being bigger, higher, more bulky. They dwarf my roomy stationwagon...sandwiched between 2 in a parking lot my car virtually disappears, yet I can haul just as much stuff.

It seems to me that buyers without a specific need for such a vehicle, do bear responsibility for sustaining, if not creating, the market for these gas guzzlers.

Subject: RE: BS: Seen the SUV = Terrorism Ad?
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jan 03 - 08:11 PM

I agree Mudlark, they do bear responsibility. So do people who keep buying plastic crap they don't need from K Mart. So do people who continue to heat their homes with fossil fuels, and work in anti-human scale work environments for companies large enough to sustain production of that level, regardless of the product--from office workers in law offices, nonprofits, and insurance companies, to people building smart bomb components for 3M. People who use Chemlawn. Farmers who use volatile petrochemicals on their crops and their livestock.

We all bear responsibility and share blame. But even admitting that won't help, because we have to DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WE'VE ALWAYS DONE. Running ads is just more of the same. A blip on the radar. Here now--nope, it's gone. Never mind. Forgotten already, in less than 60 seconds.

Subject: RE: BS: Seen the SUV = Terrorism Ad?
From: GUEST,Q
Date: 11 Jan 03 - 08:38 PM

Still manual transmission cars out there. Someone mentioned the Toyota Camry. For 2001:
6 cyl. 3 l. auto trans          City 23, hwy 32, green rating 6
6 cyl. 3 l. manual trans.       City 20 hwy 27 green rating 3

Subject: RE: BS: Seen the SUV = Terrorism Ad?
From: NicoleC
Date: 11 Jan 03 - 09:13 PM

Yeah, that was my point. Neither commercial is valid -- but the terrorism commercial is brilliant as a spoof.

Actually, FWIW, the Golf is a superior design of vehicle. I have a friend who is 6'4" and over 240, and fits comfortably with about 2" of headroom, and drives his daily commute from Sacramento to San Francisco (about 2 hours in rush hour each way), with no ill effects. Same friend also owns a Toyota Camry -- he drives the Golf because the Camry is too small for him. His wife gets the Camry instead.

The concept that one has to have a huge vehicle to be comfortable simply isn't true. If you have a family of 5, yeah, a wagon may be the way to go, or an SUV if you live in a area with heavy ice or poor roads. Otherwise, it's all part of the marketting package that you are attempting to decry while falling for it.

And although many consumers would like to have more fuel efficient cars to buy, most of those consumers who buy SUVs have made a choice to do so. The marketters and manufacturers could certainly be more responsible (Ford just got slapped for their ad campaigns big time), but it's not fair to let the consumers off the hook for their contribution by claiming they are ignorant. Yes, they are. They choose to be that way.

By the way, Q, I think those Camry ratings are swapped. The top one should be the manual.

I'm outta here; Guest is just trolling now. Another good thread ruined.

Subject: RE: BS: Seen the SUV = Terrorism Ad?
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jan 03 - 09:52 PM

Some of these figures must be wrong. My nine-year old Corolla Station Wagon at 120K miles routinely gets 25 miles per gallon.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Seen the SUV = Terrorism Ad?
From: NicoleC
Date: 11 Jan 03 - 11:03 PM

Latest figures for new models, Amos. I know, I know, my Mom's 12 year old Blazer gets 10mpg gallon better than the current model, and it's the same size with the same engine. Someone explain to me how this is progress?

Subject: RE: BS: Seen the SUV = Terrorism Ad?
From: GUEST,Q
Date: 11 Jan 03 - 11:20 PM

The car of your dreams: El Supremo
NicoleC, the Camry figures are correct- a number of manual transmission cars are poor on greenhouse gas emissions relative to automatics, and Camry is one of them. Why this is, I don't know. Possibly the manufacturers haven't kept them up to date.

Amos, hadn't mentioned the Toyota Corolla, which is different from the larger Camry. Models, acc. to government figures, average 30 mpg city, 39 mph Hwy, and get a green rating of six - the same as a Lincoln Towncar. At 25 mpg, your car is below average (I picked 2001 for model year). At 25 mpg, you must be a hard driver, the average is more than 25 mpg.
Remember that some of the little 4-bangers put out more emissions than the higher performance sixes; mileage may be better but because of the emissions, the greenhouse ratings are the same or even slightly worse.

Subject: RE: BS: Seen the SUV = Terrorism Ad?
From: GUEST,Q
Date: 11 Jan 03 - 11:23 PM

The site was www.hummer.com.lb/. You didn't want to look, anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Seen the SUV = Terrorism Ad?
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Jan 03 - 12:03 PM

Hummer

Subject: RE: BS: Seen the SUV = Terrorism Ad?
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Jan 03 - 12:05 PM

Now former Minnesota governor, Jesse "The Mind" Ventura, bought himself a hummer for his leaving office present.

Subject: RE: BS: Seen the SUV = Terrorism Ad?
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jan 03 - 12:09 PM

That is one orgasmic piece of machinery, I gotta say. Not like I'd ever buy one, but I can drool, can't I??

:>)


A

Subject: RE: BS: Seen the SUV = Terrorism Ad?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jan 03 - 12:25 PM

UG-LEE!!! But a good work vehicle, I suppose.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Seen the SUV = Terrorism Ad?
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Jan 03 - 12:45 PM

You see some of those Hummers tooling around the streets of downtown Atlanta these days. I'm waiting for them to come out with the stretch limo version. Oughta happen any day now...

Subject: RE: BS: Seen the SUV = Terrorism Ad?
From: NicoleC
Date: 12 Jan 03 - 01:45 PM

Too late, Carol, I've seen stretch Hummers. It looks like an ugly bus. As opposed to many of the stretch SUVs, which just look like buses.

A folloup to Guest Q, if you haven't looked at that site, the "green" rating doesn't include greenhouse gas emissions, which are rated separately.

Subject: RE: BS: Seen the SUV = Terrorism Ad?
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Jan 03 - 02:09 PM

Yeah. I was just told by my hubby and a friend here in Columbus that they've been out for a while.

streeeeeeeeeeeetch here

Subject: RE: BS: Seen the SUV = Terrorism Ad?
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Jan 03 - 02:24 PM

I believe Ventura was rumored to have ordered the yellow one.

Subject: RE: BS: Seen the SUV = Terrorism Ad?
From: GUEST,Q
Date: 12 Jan 03 - 02:47 PM

The "green rating" is sort of an overall catchall, when you try to compare cars (new, in top condition) with each other.
Here are two vehicles compared:
2001 Subaru4 AWDAuto. Legacy Wagon-mpg 22-27, GGE 8, "Green" Sc. 6
2001 Subaru4 AWDMan. Legacy Wagon- mpg 21-28, GGE 8, Green Sc. 6
2001 Subaru6 AWDAuto. Legacy Wagon- mpg 20-27, GGE 8.3, Green Sc. 6
1998 Subaru4 AWDMan. Legacy Wagon- mpg 21-27, GGE 8.1, NA
1998 Subaru4 AWDAuto. Legacy Wagon- mpg 21-26, GGE 8.4, NA

2001 Jeep6 Gr. Cherokee 4WDAuto. SUV- mpg 16-20, GGE 10.8, Gr. Sc. 5
2003 Jeep6 Gr. Cherokee 4WDAuto. SUV- mpg 16-21, GGE 10.3 Gr R. 4-6
2003 Jeep4 Liberty 4WDAuto. SUV- mpg 20-24, GGE 8.8, Gr. Sc. 4
2003 Jeep6 Liberty 4WDAuto SUV- mpg 17-21, GGE 10, Gr. Sc. 4-6
2003 Jeep6 Liberty 4WDMan. SUV- mpg 16-22, GGE 10.3, Gr. Sc. 4-6

Comparisons for my own interest mainly, because I own these two. Note that the new Liberty, smaller than the Gr. Cherokee, is not better than the larger model.
NOTE that Greenhouse Gas Emissions are lower in the new Liberty 4 cyl., but the Green score is poor because of the other gases than CO2 emitted. The GGE number is not the only one that should be looked at. There are other gases to be considered.
The Subaru is a good vehicle, but a poor performer on the ranch properties here compared to the Gr. Cherokee. Like someone who recommended it, above, it is a good vehicle for general use. It won't haul my dog cages and gear, however; the Cherokee will.

Subject: RE: BS: Seen the SUV = Terrorism Ad?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 13 Jan 03 - 11:05 AM

IMHO one of the biggest problems with SUV's is that they tend to be greatly overpowered. Consider this. You cannot buy a Dodge Durango SUV with less than a V-8 engine. I just checked out the powertrain options on Daimler Chrysler's website and the only engine options are big and bigger. Now, the Durango is not that big as far as SUV's go. It's basically the SUV version of the Dodge Dakota mid-size pickup and you can certainly get a Dakota with a V-6. Why can't you get a Durango with a V-6? I don't know the answer, but here are some possibilities:

A) Most people who would drive a Durango couldn't care less about fuel economy. Anybody who'd spend $30,000.00 for the vehicle's not gonna bitch about a few bucks more per fill-up. Anyway, the big powerplant makes them feel like they're kings of the road.

B) Daimler Chrysler really wants/needs that extra two or three thousand bucks that the V-8 adds to the sticker price that they wouldn't get if the thing was V-6 equipped.

C) Conspiracy between the automakers and the oil companies.

D) All of the above.

My point is that even if the customer desires fuel efficiency, that option has been taken away. I'm sure some SUV drivers really do feel that it is the vehicle that they need, and some of them would gladly drive more efficient models if they were available. But if the automaker doesn't provide choices the buyer's only options are to be part of the problem or to buy something else.

Bruce

Subject: RE: BS: Seen the SUV = Terrorism Ad?
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Jan 03 - 11:13 AM

Anybody who'd spend $30,000.00 for the vehicle's not gonna bitch about a few bucks more per fill-up.

Anybody who would spend $30,000.00 for a DODGE has more money than brains ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Seen the SUV = Terrorism Ad?
From: GUEST,maire-aine at work
Date: 13 Jan 03 - 11:40 AM

In the sense that it gets people thinking about fuel economy, it's good, but it's wrong to condemn every SUV on the road. As a Detroiter, I'm very sensitive to the ups and downs of the auto industry. The car makers are trying to balance both sides. On the one hand, people really want these things. They want to feel safer and up high to see the road, and 4-wheel-drive for the winter. But the industry knows they've got to improve fuel economy-- witness some of the concept cars at this year's North American Auto Show. I think we'll be seeing more of those engines in the road real soon.

Subject: RE: BS: Seen the SUV = Terrorism Ad?
From: Kim C
Date: 13 Jan 03 - 11:58 AM

I'm 35 years old. There are Toyota Land Cruisers still on the road that are Older Than Me. A few years back I sold a futon to a guy who was driving a '66 Land Cruiser.

SUVs have been around a LONG time. Anybody remember Willys? International Harvester? They're not a new thing. That they have entered the mainstream is a fairly new thing.

Some have good use for them, some don't. But to suggest that the driver of an SUV supports the foreign oil market more than the driver of any other vehicle with a V-8 engine, or any other internal combustion engine, is just a little silly.

I am all for reducing our dependence on foreign oil, and on oil altogether. We need an engine that runs on garbage. Now, you may think that's funny, but just remember, Mark Twain wouldn't invest in the telephone because he didn't think it would take off.

Decaying food waste produces gas. Surely there's some way we can work with that.

Subject: RE: BS: Seen the SUV = Terrorism Ad?
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Jan 03 - 12:02 PM

Hey Kim. Check out my first couple of posts to this thread. It looks like hydrogen fuel cells will be the fuel of the future for vehicles. They even have a hydrogen fuel cell powered SUV in the works.

Subject: RE: BS: Seen the SUV = Terrorism Ad?
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 13 Jan 03 - 12:35 PM

I saw the networks scambling around putting out the fires on this one this morning... they reduced it to:

Though we don't really need his oil, we can't risk him destabilizing the region, because he's so "unpredictible and unstable".

I don't know... It's a lot like an addict... or a jealous lover... Or, maybe we oughta use it up as fast as possible, and get the oil companies off our backs... If only they hadn't been buying up all the superior alternative technologies for the past 50 years... or so has the fringe been hinting...

It's not about comparisons of competitively priced autos... It's not about SUVs... it's not about the economy... For me, the technology is the issue. We have the technology to walk away from oil, casually, with the smiling satisfaction of knowing we are really doing good for a change... ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Seen the SUV = Terrorism Ad?
From: GUEST,Q
Date: 13 Jan 03 - 01:10 PM

No one mentions the fact that your house is a big contributor to greenhouse gases- more so than your vehicles.
Commercial planes? Really big producers! Per passenger much more than any vehicle.

Of course industry is never bothered, although there are many ways in which they could reduce emissions. Because changes would cost them money, nothing will be done unless government forces them.

SUV's and vans on truck chassis (although modified), such as Durango, Suburban, Yukon, etc. are in a different class than Ford Explorer, Jeep Cherokee, etc. Weight, type of transmission and ratios, regulations less strict for light trucks, etc.

Bee-Dubya-ell is partly right about 6 vs. 8 cyl. use in some vehicles. A case in point is the Jeep Cherokee. For off-road use, a skid plate and other protection may be added to the sixes. They won't fit on the 8, which is a highway machine (New models now, may no longer apply).
That said, most 6 and 8 cyl cars achieve the same "green" rating of about 6. There is little real difference.

BMW is testing 10 hydrogen models on the road in California. Saw the item on TV about a year ago, but have heard nothing since. Anybody know more?