Your suggestoin for a SUV

There is no 'loop hole' in the CAFE regulation. The CAFE figure
for cars forced buyers into small less safe cars. There was no
suitable way to make trucks smaller and yet do the job they
needed to do, therefore the CAFE for trucks was set lower. The
fact that manufactures used those same chassis to transport eight
rather than four was a smart move. Many people NEED room for
more than four, particularly those with children. A benefit is
that fewer children over the past five years have been killed or
severally injured in large SUV than if they were be transported
in a smaller less safe autos. One can not beat the laws of
physics. I too drive high powered RWD V8 cars. I have no need
for an SUV, but I see no reason to deny those that do need them
to buy them.



mike hunt

 

that's the loophole, dim bulb

 

Duh. Writing a regulation the permits something is not a
'loophole.' The two step CAFE regulation permitted lower
mileage for trucks than cars. The number of passengers a truck
can carry in not a 'loophole' either. Trucks were built at the
time the regulation was set that could carry up to six passengers
in crew cabs. When one side runs out of arguments to support
their point and must resort to name calling or vulgarities it
time to end the discourse. I'll waist no more time tying to
enlighten someone with a closed mind.


mike hunt

 

Hey lookie here! Yet *another* reader finds "MikeHunt" to be a
prejudiced lackey. LOL
--

Philip

"If a long train of abuses, prevarications, and artifices, all tending
the same way, make the design visible to the people . tis not to be
wondered that they should then rouse themselves."
- John Locke (1632-1704)

 

None, I never keep my cars more than two years, not cost
effective. The term is quicker, even a 4cy can go fast.



mike hunt

 

That from a guy that has nothing to do but spend his life
in the NG's. Every time I drop into one of these NG's over these
many years the poor fellow is there, cross posting and commenting
on something of which he has little or no knowledge, so sad.


mike hunt

 

"socialist"? Funny, I don't recall anything regarding ownership of the
means of production in the previous post.

 

So was their cramming that rear third row seat behind the rear
wheel - right in the crumple zone. They stopped third row
seats in station wagons for this reason - but for SUVs - it'll
take a few thousand dead children before they get rid of it.

 

I guess the sky really is falling chicken little, could you provide a
cite for the documentation of all these deaths that you are concerned
about. I'd even settle for a cite that highlights injuries of any
kind.

 

Hi,
So how many times in a week, do they carry 8 persons in a BIG SUV.
I only drag out big truck of mine when I need it. Other times I
drive small econo box. Some wondered if I was on welfare because I drive
econo box. Poor driving skills/bad road manner kills more people than
driving a small vehicle. Why SUVs roll over more? Because drivers don't
know what they're doing driving it. By design it has higher center of
gravity and it is heavier than car. Not only in driving, there are many who
don't know what they're doing. I see them at work place, I see them on
the road, I see them in class room, I see them every where.
Seems like Mr. Bush, your prez. does not know what he is doing.
(or talking)
Tony

 

Currently they are not compiling such data, but it is only logical
that if you pur the third row/seats in the rear crumple zone, that
passengers in an accident are going to be in trouble.

The rear of the seat cushion on your SUV's back row should be
no farther back than the rear axle. I've seen some that even
place the rear seat 4-6 inches from the rear door/glass. That's
just asking to get hurt.

 

Your lucky, some folks with children can't afford more than
one vehicle



mike hunt

 

have you ever looked at the configuration of most small cars, almost
all of them have their seat backs beyond the rear axle. I'll gran the
point about seat clearance from the rear but I don't believe that too
many SUVS are like that, I know that the expedition has almost 18
inches between the seat back and the rear plus another 6+ inches of
bumper give well over 2 feet of clearance. If an impact is so strong
that it would affect a passenger 2 feet from the rear, it would be bad
for the passenger no matter what vehicle was involved.
next strawman step forward

 

This is false. You find me a "small car" that has seats *beyond* the rear
axle (the word "beyond" meaning the region between the rear axle and the
rear bumper). Go ahead, name a few that are not station wagons. The
trunk is not a seat.

--

Philip

"If a long train of abuses, prevarications, and artifices, all tending
the same way, make the design visible to the people . tis not to be
wondered that they should then rouse themselves."
- John Locke (1632-1704)

 

The entire passenger area is encased within a safety cage in
an automobile. There's then 1-3 feet of trunk area as a crumple
zone. Now, compare that to a seat thrown into a SUV that's a
few inches from the rear door.

Of course, smart people who need to safely transport that many
people - they get a huge Surburban or simmilar truck.

 

you name an SUV with a rear seat a few inches from the rear door

 

What type of SUV did the late John Gotti Have?

 

Achulee, I thought it was more chronic than acute.

Of course not, Scottie, but perhaps warning people not to put kids in
front seats because a deploying air bag could kill them is a factor, as
well.

 

An SUV simply needs to crash into an 18-wheeler or bus and the SUV folks
are in deep yogurt.

 

Nearly NONE of them. "Over the axle" means front the center of the wheel
on back.
--

Philip

"If a long train of abuses, prevarications, and artifices, all tending
the same way, make the design visible to the people . tis not to be
wondered that they should then rouse themselves."
- John Locke (1632-1704)