b0962326   
   XPost: rec.autos.driving   
   From: bv521@FreeNet.Carleton.CA   
      
   Harry K (turnkey4099@hotmail.com) writes:   
   > On Aug 31, 1:33=A0pm, Steve  wrote:   
   >> On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 07:25:27 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>  wrote:   
   >>   
   >> >"Harry K"  wrote in message   
   >> >news:8d605482-aa79-4b94-9cfb-5289d0d9413f@k17g2000prf.googlegroups.com..=   
   > .   
   >> >On Aug 30, 4:34 pm, necromancer - ECHM > >zidane.fr> wrote:   
   >> >> On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 15:20:15 -0700 (PDT), "His Highness the   
   >> >> TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock & the   
   >> >> Stationary Bicycle to burn the calories"    
   >> >> wrote:   
   >>   
   >> >> >The story goes that in the old times cars were regulated by CAFE   
   >> >> >standards, and Congress somehow got around those regulations by   
   >> >> >labeling the SUV a "truck"... Yes, they can be very clever when they   
   >> >> >want.   
   >>   
   >> >> COngress didn't label them trucks. The automakers did by building   
   >> >> SUV's on the same frame that they build their trucks on.   
   >>   
   >> >> >Anyway a jungle vehicle --they want to look tough-- that was   
   >> >> >unsafe to itself and others landed on American roads, which were   
   >> >> >pretty unsafe anyway, and without a truck license of any kind (as   
   >> >> >common sense would dictate) unleashed the Law of the Jungle among   
   >> >> >drivers and appealed to the "animal within."   
   >>   
   >> >> Well, the jungle beats the alternative.   
   >>   
   >> >> >That's not nice for other drivers and the environment, but I have a   
   >> >> >further classification that would take effect wherever the revolution   
   >> >> >comes to power: THE SUV IS A TOY.   
   >>   
   >> >> Many are because they are used as such. Most are used for mundane   
   >> >> things such as driving to the store, taking the kids to school and so   
   >> >> on - because they were the only alternative to the station wagon which   
   >> >> was effectively driven out of existence in america (sic) by CAFE.   
   >>   
   >> >   
   >>   
   >> >Errmmm...there was a far better alternative to the SW - the van. =A0It   
   >> >wasn't accepted as such because it didn't have the bells and whistles   
   >> >(read 4x) of the SUV. =A0Why people who never went off-road thought they   
   >> >needed 4x is beyond me. =A0My guess is that 90% or more of the SUV sales   
   >> >were for the "chest beating" reason.   
   >>   
   >> >Harry K   
   >>   
   >> >   
   >> >Most SUV are not equipped with 4WD, so that can't be the reason people   
   >>   
   >> You're wrong about that.. =A0 go up into snow country and it's pretty   
   >> hard to find an SUV w/o 4wd.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> >prefer them over vans. Clearly some are loaded with 4WD, and very few va=   
   > ns   
   >> >have a 4WD option, so that can be the driving factor of some buyers, but=   
   >  not   
   >> >a majority of them.   
   >>   
   >> >My guess is that you are wrong. Lots of drivers don't tolerate a low dri=   
   > ving   
   >> >position very well, and they prefer the upright, and elevated, position =   
   > that   
   >> >they get from a truck. When a truck is fitted with the opulent interior   
   >> >packages that are offered today, as opposed to the spartan packages that   
   >> >were available in the '60s and 70's, and somewhat beyond for some makers=   
   > ,   
   >> >then the overall comfort level easily approaches that of a car, and can   
   >> >surpass the comfort of a car in many aspects. I'd never argue that a tru=   
   > ck   
   >> >can surpass the performance of a car, but they can meet or exceed the   
   >> >comfort.   
   >>   
   >> >There are lots of reasons that people will gravitate to an SUV, most of =   
   > them   
   >> >having nothing at all to do with 4WD.   
   >>   
      
   >   
   > And I can't name any of the SUV's that kicked off the fad that didn't   
   > have 4x.  May have been but...   
   >   
   > I would lay odds on 4x being in the majority of SUV in any area of the   
   > country.   
   >   
   > Harry K   
      
      
   In Canada, 93% of the vehicles on the road are _NOT_ SUVs.   
      
   If a space monkey was travelling to the earth, with intention of landing   
   in Montreal Canada (Montreal Canada, only because his monkey data feed was   
   coming from the Canadian Media), from the planet Monkey-Turd-World, it   
   would get out of the monkey ship and say "Where the fuck are all the SUVs,   
   auk auk aahaahaaha?" "Ook ook, that data feed told us there were SUVs   
   here, SUVs there, SUVs everywhere, eeke eee!" "Eee eee ouk, what the fucks   
   going on, ouk ouk?"   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)