BS: Seen the SUV = Terrorism Ad?

Subject: RE: BS: Seen the SUV = Terrorism Ad?
From: Haruo
Date: 16 Jan 03 - 01:20 AM

I think the SUV ad is a nice counterpoint to the ones that try to shame people into not buying illegal drugs on the same grounds. (Gives those who only use drugs that were free an illicit moral superiority complex, methinks.)

I think it's bizarre (but oh so typical) that the same government that is dead set on overriding voters' intent to allow doctors to prescribe marijuana to folks who may actually benefit from it turns around and itself dispenses amphetamines to its combat pilots and then charges the pilots with a crime when they accidentally bomb Canada.

Haruo
who recalls his own days as a member of a not-for-profit drug cartel (New Haven, 1973)

Subject: RE: BS: Seen the SUV = Terrorism Ad?
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Jan 03 - 10:30 PM

Thanks for answering, Claymore.

Subject: RE: BS: Seen the SUV = Terrorism Ad?
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 15 Jan 03 - 07:22 PM

CarolC I don't want to do a thread creep, but I'll answer as quickly as I can

1. I totally agree with the IMF Media guy... the last time I read such leftist pap was Communist leaflets in Vietnam...

2. I noticed the resignations from the Times were in 87. Three days ago the Washington Times caught the New York Times out in the open and blew them up. After the Bush tax proposals were made public, the NT Times found a family of mouth-breathers in Texas, who claimed that the new tax cuts wouldn't give them a dime. The Washington Times ran the families numbers (married w/two children, on $50,000 a year) with some CPA's, and found they would get back $2,974 more because of the new child exemptions and the reduction of the marriage tax. They have been demanding that the NYT retract or apologize, but the Times only published a correction two days later. Any paper that can destroy the credibility of the Grey Lady in one shot gets my vote. And you remember that I always get the Post, and read them both every day - just for balance.

Now back to the thread... Why is it that all the photos of terrorists in vehicles show them in SUV's? I think our Predator plane folks could simply dial in "Toyota Pathfinder" into the Hellfire and they would get truck loads of Taliban, Al-Queda (or better yet, Reporters).

I think there something to be said for sticking your license plate holder into the rear window of a low slung sports car, subtley reminding him that even if he flips the sports car seven times into a field trying to get away, I can still get to him in the softest dirt and run him down...

And I can make a U turn on a median strip, or (if I don't mind the scratches and screams) a downtown bus stop.

And when I pull into a gas station and pull almost three figures in front of the decimal point on the gas pump (Price or Gallons) you know some babe will be sliding onto my front seat.

How about the guy in Martinsburg, who when some guy in a regular car pulled into his parking space during a snow storm, after he shoveled it out, hooked a chain, to the bumper and pulled the car into a hole in a construction site...

All I need now is a bumper sticker that says "I Carry a Gun and I Vote!" and I'm sh-ting in tall cotton...

It was good to hear from you Carol...

Subject: RE: BS: Seen the SUV = Terrorism Ad?
From: NicoleC
Date: 15 Jan 03 - 02:08 PM

Jesus was a retired carpenter, remember? The Sermon on the Mount didn't include any helpful home improvement tips. :)

On the other hand, this would be a legitimate case of carpooling -- for 13 people, sounds like a good use of a Suburban to me. With a roof rack for all those fishing rods and gear for the apostles.

Although I think he'd go for an VW microbus, myself... but that could be because I always viewed Jesus as a kind of a BCE hippie...

Subject: Resource Consumption
From: saulgoldie
Date: 15 Jan 03 - 01:48 PM

'Scuse me, for I came in a bit late on this. But even though the ad may have been a bit strong (allright, and maybe even hyperbolic) the underlying truth is that we cannot keep consuming resources at the current steadily increasing rate with more people adopting our habits and still have a world. The world's population is thousands of times what it was when our species was younger, and we consume thousands of times the resources per capita.

The resources we are consuming took millions of years to create. The rate we are using them is thousands of times faster than they were created. This is unsustainable, regardless of what political diety you pray to--conservative, liberal, commie, NRA, KGB, IFP. At the current rate of consumption (which includes but is by no means limited to) SUVS, we will have no air to breathe, no water to drink, and no oil left to burn within less than a century.

But then, I am an optimist, so please pay no attention.

Subject: RE: BS: Seen the SUV = Terrorism Ad?
From: GUEST,Q
Date: 15 Jan 03 - 01:31 PM

Carry his table and other saws and tools on the bus? In this city of 1,000,000 metro, walks of a couple of miles to the new housing from the bus or light rail line end would be the minimum (Town spreading as the people take to the hills to build new houses). Town growth automobile-based.

Subject: RE: BS: Seen the SUV = Terrorism Ad?
From: NicoleC
Date: 15 Jan 03 - 01:14 PM

Or take the bus :)

Subject: RE: BS: Seen the SUV = Terrorism Ad?
From: GUEST,Kim C no cookie
Date: 15 Jan 03 - 01:08 PM

I have heard it said, that Jesus being a carpenter and all, would probably drive a Ford F-150 pickup truck with a toolbox in the back.

Subject: RE: BS: Seen the SUV = Terrorism Ad?
From: GUEST,Q
Date: 14 Jan 03 - 09:41 PM

A little behind in one of my posts. Fording Coal is being taken over by a Consortium for just over 1.1 billion US. The consortium includes the Ontario Teachers Pension Fund and Sherritt Mines; mostly Canadian but a small share to the US Consol Energy Co.
Coal is making a comeback in the Canadian Energy picture.

Subject: RE: BS: Seen the SUV = Terrorism Ad?
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Jan 03 - 08:02 PM

Yo, Claymore. I asked you a question on the "Any conservatives on Mudcat" thread. Just type "conservative" (without the quotes) in the filter box at the top of the thread list in the main fotum page, set the age for 7 days, and click "refresh" if you want to see it.

Subject: RE: BS: Seen the SUV = Terrorism Ad?
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 14 Jan 03 - 07:20 PM

Well you know that once I heard that there was going to be a campaign against SUV's I had to go get one, which I just did ( a used 97 GMC Jummy for $6,000). We've just had two snow storms and a really bad ice storm.

One of my environmentalist friends was kidding me about the Jesus campaign and I told him that what Jesus would be doing now would hanging his raggety-ass thumb out on the side of the road, as I, the true Christian my mother always thought I was, would pick him up in the snow, after carefully placing a plastic bag over the seats so he wouldn't get them wet.

It's snowing as I write this, with a big one due on Thursday, and I can't help thinking Jesus needs a better PR guy... or a different crowd to hang with.

Subject: RE: BS: Seen the SUV = Terrorism Ad?
From: GUEST,Q
Date: 13 Jan 03 - 08:20 PM

NicoleC, here in Canada we support Bombardier, who manufacture light rail systems; with the Canadian dollar and many other currencies at low values, there is no way US made equipment has a chance without subsidies that are illegal in international trade. Siemens, German-controlled, international with many products including light-rail, health care and computers, supplys 74,000 jobs in North America. Siemens won out here in my city because they were cheaper at the time. Both are excellent companies, with Siemens a major player in research.
In my city transit expansion is needed, but the city-provincial governments will not pay for it. The system will always have to be subsidized because people will not pay the fares needed to support it.
The oil companies have never worked against light rail systems. A combination of politics and costs, mainly costs, marginalize rail transit. That is why the railroad companies have no interest in it.

Here in Alberta-British Columbia, it looked like coal (tremendous amounts here) might start to grow again. Std. Oil NJ through its affiliate here set up a research lab and not only bought coal producers, but prospected for still more reserves. But it looks like profits, as things stand now, are years down the road, so the properties are on the market if not already sold. Coal will be used, however, in new power generation and some industries. Much of it will continue to be exported to Japan, etc. More emissions? Yes.

The major oil companies will continue research and diversification so that they can continue in the energy business if oil looks like it might be on the way out. But a long ways to go yet. Hydrogen, fission, whatever, the energy will be there.

Subject: RE: BS: Seen the SUV = Terrorism Ad?
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 13 Jan 03 - 07:22 PM

Oh Yeh! I knew we saw Eye to Eye... thanks for reasuring me though! ;^) ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Seen the SUV = Terrorism Ad?
From: NicoleC
Date: 13 Jan 03 - 07:03 PM

Too many thoughts, TTR. It's not "investing" in renewable energy when you buy companies just to cripple them or outright shut them down. It's the same kind of small-minded short-sightness that prevents these energy companies from doing anything innovative and lucrative in the long term for the sake of protecting their market this week.

I wouldn't mind Ford extoling the virtues of yourself alone in your car on the open road, if we didn't have to rely on European manufacturers for light rail systems. Let's prop up Ford with more tax incentives though, but call it a "free market."

But Shell will spend millions advertising how environmentally friendly they are. Bwahahahahaha!......

Subject: RE: BS: Seen the SUV = Terrorism Ad?
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 13 Jan 03 - 06:39 PM

NicolleC, the oil companies have been systematically gobbling up the workable 'alternative energy systems for 50 years... and they've been marginalising the mass transit systems for 70 years... The 'big money' issues are very pertinent m'dear... My studies show that the oil/auto industries have been kicking the American public around for a long time. Whaddya t'ink 'bout dat?;^) ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Seen the SUV = Terrorism Ad?
From: GUEST,Q
Date: 13 Jan 03 - 06:29 PM

Mohawk gasoline in Canada has a percentage derived from the farm.
Don't worry, folks, replacement for oil will be found. No use getting excited.

Subject: RE: BS: Seen the SUV = Terrorism Ad?
From: Kim C
Date: 13 Jan 03 - 05:33 PM

Well, I thought the corn alcohol engine was a good idea...

Subject: RE: BS: Seen the SUV = Terrorism Ad?
From: NicoleC
Date: 13 Jan 03 - 04:41 PM

I totally agree, Kim.

The automakers can make all the hydrogen cars they want -- but where are you going to fll up? If you could buy one tomorrow, how far could you drive?

Geologists are now estimating that the world's oil reserves will run out in about 50 years. (Some estimates say much less, but I think they don't account for possible new sources.) That may sound like a long time, but it's pretty short to get rid of ALL uses of oil and convert economies to different types of fuel sources.

My Dad worked in the oil industry all his life. He used to fume and fulminate that the damn environmentalists wanted to change NOW and that it takes time to make the change -- now he fumes and fulminates that we haven't even really *started.*

There's a TON of money to be made in renewable energy! There's no reason big oil can't be the big not-oil energy companies of the future. But where's the innovation? Why so short-sighted that they don't make the investments now to leverage themselves to dominate the market later? They dabble a toe in every now and then, and whine that there aren't the tax subsidies they're used to, then spend more money trying to scrub up their corporate image, wasting all the (free) consumer goodwill they might generate by acting responsibly.

Their grandfathers and great-grandfathers were pioneers of industry that took risks -- my, how the blood thins in those overbred heirs.

Big oil needs to go on a tax diet; the industry has grown fat and bloated off billions of tax dollars that artificially reduce the price of gas, build the roads oil-based vehicles drive on, military expenditures to secure their oil sources, and more billions to clean up the pollution caused by oil and gasoline additives like MBTE. Bush wants tax dollars to subsidize hydrogen delivery systems (like gas stations) -- I say go right ahead, we need it! But take the money away from the old technology and stop propping it up! If we chipped away at those tax subsidies every year (and yes, gas prices would go up) and moved them to public transportation and renewal energy tax breaks, we might see some industry movement. In the meantime, like the corpulent sloth it is, Big Oil goes nowhere, and hangs on to a dying energy source.

By the way -- there's a $2,000 consumer tax credit if you buy a hybrid vehicle, that'll slowly reduce over the next few years to reward early adopters. Now THAT'S what I'm talking about!

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

Carol, I think that's pretty neat. I've already been eyeballing that Santa Fe as a possibility when the old Jeep quits running.

Nicole, the thing is, once somebody figures out there is Lots of Money to be made in hydrogen engines, they'll be readily available. People will always need some kind of energy to power something, so I think the argument that "there's too much money in oil" is just a smoke & mirror tactic to cover up for "we don't feel like taking the time to do research."

Sure, there's a lot of money in oil. But there could just as easily be as much money in methane or hydrogen or what have you.

And as far as environmentally friendly ways to make electricity... we have this thing called the Sun. I think we are WAY behind on solar power research.

Subject: RE: BS: Seen the SUV = Terrorism Ad?
From: NicoleC
Date: 13 Jan 03 - 01:35 PM

There are multiple hydrogen vehicles being tested around here, by multiple car manufacturers. Only one BMW, I believe. Most are just hydrogen versions of existing cars.

I'd like to get excited, but they were "testing" hydrogen cars in Davis 30 years ago, and they never came out into production.

Subject: RE: BS: Seen the SUV = Terrorism Ad?
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 13 Jan 03 - 01:21 PM

The preceeding car commercials were brought to you by...

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?

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: CarolC
Date: 12 Jan 03 - 12:03 PM

Hummer

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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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 - 08:01 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: 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: 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 - 07:44 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: 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.