Typical response from SUV driver

"James C. Reeves" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dan J.S." > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> Do you ever leave your lights on when you are not in a room? Or turn up
>> the heat? I mean, we are all gas wasterers. There is plenty of gas to
>> waste. I own one of those vans you mentioned, and I get 14 MPG (thats a
>> new Sienna Minivan)... yeah the sticker says 24, but thats on the highway
>> in perfect conditions.
>>
>> Why do people care what you drive? Look at all the **** you probably buy
>> from China, who is using GENERATORS to produce electricity because their
>> grid is wacked (This is why the gas prices are high). Your little $3
>> chinese made knife caused just as much in energy consumption as the
>> conversation you had with the SUV driver.
>>
>>
>>
>
> There is something very wrong with your Sienna. I have a 1997 Caravan 3.3
> V6 and get 25-27 on highway trips (loaded with family and gear) and have
> gotten as high as 30 empty. Around town I average 19-20, with 16 the
> absolute lowest I've ever gotten (and I calculate MPG at every fill up).
> I would think your Sienna should do better than a Caravan. I'd have it
> checked.
>

Yeah I checked siennaclub.org and I am inline. The sienna minivan is worse
than a damn Yukon Denali... they are only good when you drive 60 MPH..
thats when I get 22-23 MPG max...

Cartrivision1 wrote:

> Ok, if you take her at her word that the Suburban is always full of
> children that she is shuttling around, aren't there safer and more
> efficent means?

I'd like to know how she can "lose" six kids. ;-)



John

--


Von Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen. --Beethoven

"Paul" > wrote in message
th.net...
> On 20 Jun 2005 12:58:43 -0700, Cartrivision1 , said the following in
> rec.autos.driving...
>
>
> <snip>
>
>> And besides, how many of these enormous SUV's do you see that are
>> actually being used to their full potential?
>
> None.
>
>> That is why I coined the
>> term a few years back, "Seats Usually Vacant".
>
> We have another term we use here to describe women (and men) like the one
> you encountered: MFFY - Me First, **** You. Describes 100% the attitude
> of someone who drives a Stupid Useless Vehicle with Seats Usually Vacant.

You must be using the Royal "WE", because MFFY is more descriptive of a
STYLE (or lack therof) of driving than WHAT you are driving.

"Cartrivision1" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
>
> C.H. wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 16:33:20 -0400, Paul wrote:
>>
>> > On 20 Jun 2005 12:58:43 -0700, Cartrivision1 , said the following in
>> > rec.autos.driving...
>> >
>> >> And besides, how many of these enormous SUV's do you see that are
>> >> actually being used to their full potential?
>> >
>> > None.
>>
>> My truck is used to its full potential. I even thought about buying a
>> 2500
>> instead of a 1500 because trailering is easier with the heavier vehicle.
>> When I don't need the truck, it stays home.
>>
>> I always laugh about emptyheaded wannabe-gas-saver punks, who have no
>> idea
>> what a person is doing with their truck or SUV but have an unmanageable
>> compulsion to run their mouths.
>>
>
> The sad truth whether you want to admit it or not is that most if not
> the majority of large trucks/SUV's are usually being driven around
> empty, snd/or not trailering anything. I have another term that I
> coined for those trucks....that is "Vanity Vrucks". You know, the ones
> with the shiny tool boxes, grille guards, no hitch, etc., and with not
> a speck of dirt or scratch to be seen.
>
> And yes, we all have a responsibility to our fellow citizens to not be
> wasteful of our limited resources. Just cause you CAN drive around an
> emplty Chevy Suburban does not make it right. I do not have to go back
> to all of the reasons that SUV's are wasteful, I am sure we have all
> heard them a million times. Not to mention what the greater demand for
> fuel most likely does to gas prices.

Do you attack people driving Lexus LS430s, Acura RLs, Honda S2000s, Toyota
Avalon's, Mitsubishi Eclipses, etc., etc., etc (all vehicles which mostly
ride around with unused seats). Actually, do you attack anyone driving
anything at all? After all driving any fuel powered vehicle is consuming a
limited resource. I suppose you can let people driving Insights or Priuses
off the hook, as long as all the seats are occupied.

Personally I am sick of hypocrites like the ones who started this thread
demonizing SUV owners. In most cases, the only difference between them and
the SUV drivers is the amount of fuel they waste. They have decided that
there personal level of excess is OK, but no more. Well they are full of
S&*T.

People buy SUVs for the same reason other people buy sports cars, and other
people buy vehicle with performance capabilities (and gas consumption) far
beyond their needs - they want them. Their stated reason are often illogical
or just made up. The proliferation of SUVs is a direct result of the CAFE
regulations. These regulations were stupid. If you really want to fix the
"SUV problem" encourage your representatives to increase taxes on imported
oil, ditch the stupid CAFE rules, and provide workable mass transit. If your
real goal is just save the gas so you can waste it in your Honda Accord,
shut up. You are just another gas wasting hypocrite.

Ed

"The Man Behind The Curtain" > wrote in message
...
> Cartrivision1 wrote:
>
>> Ok, if you take her at her word that the Suburban is always full of
>> children that she is shuttling around, aren't there safer and more
>> efficent means?
>
> I'd like to know how she can "lose" six kids. ;-)

You must not have any.


Ed

C.H. wrote:
>
> It is one of the biggest problems of our time, that people in general
> and specifically people like you are more prejudiced and try to force
> their lifestyle and their limited world view onto others.
>

Christian Huebner = irony.

E.P.

Cartrivision1 wrote:
>
> And besides, how many of these enormous SUV's do you see that are
> actually being used to their full potential? That is why I coined the
> term a few years back, "Seats Usually Vacant".
>

In America, people have the right to be stupid, wasteful and vain. I
do not want to imagine the U.S.A. where well-meaning people get to
dictate what choices we make. That doesn't take much imagination
nowadays, however.

I figure once gas prices reach a more natural level, people who now
drive those behemoths will "get religion" and move to more
fuel-efficent vehicles, because they all of a sudden figure out that
they are moving around three tons of steel for no other reason than the
next-door neighbor is/was.

This doesn't count those very small fraction of folks who actually
bought those vehicles for their functions that cannot be fufilled by
other vehicles.

E.P.

"Dave C." > wrote in message
eenews.net...
> >
> > There is something very wrong with your Sienna. I have a 1997 Caravan
3.3
> > V6 and get 25-27 on highway trips (loaded with family and gear) and have
> > gotten as high as 30 empty. Around town I average 19-20, with 16 the
> > absolute lowest I've ever gotten (and I calculate MPG at every fill up).
> I
> > would think your Sienna should do better than a Caravan. I'd have it
> > checked.
>
> Your caravan is atypical. I drove several of them (brand new), up to the
> 2002 model year, with the same or similar engine. I never got over 18MPG.
> NEVER. It was mostly driven on long highway trips with the cruise control
> set at ~5 over. But the cruise control didn't do much worse than I could
on
> my own, driving very conservatively. The best I ever got (the BEST) was
> 18MPG. Tires properly inflated, all maintenance done above and beyond the
> recommendations in the owners manual. Several Caravans. I had buddies
who
> drove the same vehicle and none of them got over 18MPG (it wasn't
e) -Dave

My parents have a '97 Caravan with the 3.3 V6 and automatic overdrive
tranny. The highest mileage is gets is low 20's on the highway, mid teens
around town. Surprisingly the mileage is not much better than what my '68
gets.

"Cartrivision1" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> I was walking my dogs as I usually do by the high school a few blocks
> from my home. It is in a fairly affluent neighborhood, and as you can
> expect a number (a lot) of people drive large SUV's around here. Of
> course they are usually piloted by a soccer mom with a cell-phone
> plastered to her face. But anyway, after seeing this for over a year I
> finally had enough and said something to one of them. It went
> something like this:
>
<snip mindless banter of a "conversation">
>
> Ok, if you take her at her word that the Suburban is always full of
> children that she is shuttling around, aren't there safer and more
> efficent means? I did a Google search, and the Honda Odyssey gets
> around 26 or so mpg on the highway. My sister has one of these and
> these are very safe and versatile vehicles.
>
> And besides, how many of these enormous SUV's do you see that are
> actually being used to their full potential? That is why I coined the
> term a few years back, "Seats Usually Vacant".

What happened to freedom of choice? If the owner is willing to pay for the
gas burned then so be it, let them drive wahtever they want to. It's not my
problem. So long as the vehicle isn 't spewing smoke and smelling bad I
really couldn't care less what anyone else drives.

As far as fossil fuel use... The majority of our fossil fuel use in this
country is not for automobiles, much less the soccer moms shuttling their
kids around town driving relatively few miles. Ever since the tree huggers
killed of station wagons with CAFE there has beena boom in SUVs. It's the
logical solution to the problem with CAFE and unrealistic mileage
requirements for a full-size station wagon. So be it, the tree huggers did
it to themselves, so let 'em suffer.

Oh, by the way I drive a '68 Galaxie and put 18,000 miles on it last year.
My best mileage was about 16.5, and typically I get 13.5-14.5 MPG. No one
ever complains about how I drive a 'gas guzzler every day', though it has
been suggested that I get a more economical beater car for the winter at
least. I would be happy to drive a more fuel efficient vehicle as a daily
driver, but I can't afford insurance on two vehicles. It costs a lot more to
insure a beat to hell POS econo-box than it does to insure my '68 so I just
drive the '68 every day year round. It's more reliable and also cheaper,
even factoring in the fuel mileage and that it burns 93 octane. Of course I
live in NJ, the state with the highest insurance premiums in the country.

Cory

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 16:33:20 -0400, Paul > wrote:

>On 20 Jun 2005 12:58:43 -0700, Cartrivision1 , said the following in
>rec.autos.driving...
>
>
><snip>
>
>> And besides, how many of these enormous SUV's do you see that are
>> actually being used to their full potential?
>
>None.
>
>> That is why I coined the
>> term a few years back, "Seats Usually Vacant".
>
>We have another term we use here to describe women (and men) like the one
>you encountered: MFFY - Me First, **** You. Describes 100% the attitude
>of someone who drives a Stupid Useless Vehicle with Seats Usually Vacant.


Is your house bigger then 400 sq ft? Do you use more then $50 worth
of electricity a month? If so, shove you head up your ass as you are
ALSO wasting natural resources just as surely as someone with an SUV
that you happen to think they don't need.