SUV drivers

In article >,
Scott en Aztlán <newsgroup> wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 10:38:58 -0500, "Snow" >
>wrote:
>
>>So no one who owns a suvee these days use it as a tow vehicle?? bull****!!!
>>60% of all suvees sold will tow something.
>
>Whose ass did you pull that ridiculous figure out of?
>
>I regularly make 1000-mile road trips between SoCal and Tucson. The
>vast majority of vehicles I see towing something are pickup trucks. In
>second place are RVs towing either a trailer or a small economy car.
>Once in a while I'll see a scrU-Haul towing a car. Nowhere near 60% of
>the SUVs I see are towing *anything* whatsoever.

Case in point about poor sampling. Your hamster friend didn't say
SUVs will be towing something 60% of the time. He said 60% of all
SUVs _will tow something_. Each of those 60% could tow something only
1% of the time and still meet his criterion.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article >, Matthew Russotto wrote:

> Case in point about poor sampling. Your hamster friend didn't say
> SUVs will be towing something 60% of the time. He said 60% of all
> SUVs _will tow something_. Each of those 60% could tow something only
> 1% of the time and still meet his criterion.

A kid could skeetch from the rear bumper once in the vehicle's life and
it becomes one of the 60% that was used to tow something. It's a
meaningless number.

In article >,
Brent P > wrote:
>In article >, Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
>> Case in point about poor sampling. Your hamster friend didn't say
>> SUVs will be towing something 60% of the time. He said 60% of all
>> SUVs _will tow something_. Each of those 60% could tow something only
>> 1% of the time and still meet his criterion.
>
>A kid could skeetch from the rear bumper once in the vehicle's life and
>it becomes one of the 60% that was used to tow something. It's a
>meaningless number.

Now you know why my Miata counts as a tow vehicle :-).



--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 08:10:05 -0500, "Snow" >
wrote:

>Ahh see Im in the North East, where our weather is different, so possibly
>the percentage of suvee's and how they are used could be dictated by the
>geographical area??
>

Hmmm - so because you're more likely to have snow, more people are
going to be towing boats and trailers?

>Snow...

"Matthew Russotto" > wrote in message
news
> In article >,
> Brent P > wrote:
>>In article >, Matthew Russotto wrote:
>>
>>> Case in point about poor sampling. Your hamster friend didn't say
>>> SUVs will be towing something 60% of the time. He said 60% of all
>>> SUVs _will tow something_. Each of those 60% could tow something only
>>> 1% of the time and still meet his criterion.
>>
>>A kid could skeetch from the rear bumper once in the vehicle's life and
>>it becomes one of the 60% that was used to tow something. It's a
>>meaningless number.
>
> Now you know why my Miata counts as a tow vehicle :-).

You can tow a day sailor with a Miata, can't you? A 12' cat or something.

"Skip Elliott Bowman" > wrote in
nk.net:

> "Matthew Russotto" > wrote in message
> news
>> In article >,
>> Brent P > wrote:
>>>In article >, Matthew Russotto
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Case in point about poor sampling. Your hamster friend didn't say
>>>> SUVs will be towing something 60% of the time. He said 60% of all
>>>> SUVs _will tow something_. Each of those 60% could tow something
>>>> only 1% of the time and still meet his criterion.
>>>
>>>A kid could skeetch from the rear bumper once in the vehicle's life
>>>and it becomes one of the 60% that was used to tow something. It's a
>>>meaningless number.
>>
>> Now you know why my Miata counts as a tow vehicle :-).
>
> You can tow a day sailor with a Miata, can't you? A 12' cat or
> something.
>
>
>

I've seen them tow jet-skis on a small trailer.
That's more than most SUVs tow. (sarcasm) B-)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 20:01:48 -0500, "Magnulus"
> wrote:

>
>"Cartlon Shew" > wrote in message
.. .
>> How long is the car in this picture?
>>
>> http://www.stationwagon.com/gallery/...y_Marquis.html
>
> Wow. Look at how ridiculously long the hood is.

Yeah - beautiful, ain't it? Cars today generally have ridiculously
short hoods.

> Half the car is
>practically under the hood.

makes it easier to access the engine.

>
> In the early 80's my parents had a station wagon similar to that- beige
>colored/white with faux wood side panels. I don't remember what it was
>exactly. Maybe a Ford station wagon. I was a bit young so I don't
>remember it too well, although my dad called it "the tank".
>

Yep - they don't build them like they used to.

Big Bill wrote:
>
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 13:21:31 -0500, "Snow" >
> wrote:
>
> >Its too bad you never used your Durango to its full potential
>
> Very few people use their vehicles to their full potential.
> And, IMO, those who say they do lie about other things, too! :-)
>
> Just as one example, I own a 99 Expedition 4x4. I do go off-road, but
> I've never gotten it stuck. :-)

I've owned two Expedition, and on my farm we have a 2WD
F150, a 4WD Ranger, a couple of 2WD tractors and 1 4WD
tractor. I've never stuck either Expedition or the Ranger,
but everything else has been stuck at one time or another.
Andthe Ranger and the Expeditions have been close to being
stuck. Does that mean I am using them to their full
potential? Doe a couple of inches of mud covering all
surfaces qualify?

Ed

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 10:39:58 -0500, "C. E. White"
> wrote:

>
>
>Big Bill wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 13:21:31 -0500, "Snow" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Its too bad you never used your Durango to its full potential
>>
>> Very few people use their vehicles to their full potential.
>> And, IMO, those who say they do lie about other things, too! :-)
>>
>> Just as one example, I own a 99 Expedition 4x4. I do go off-road, but
>> I've never gotten it stuck. :-)
>
>I've owned two Expedition, and on my farm we have a 2WD
>F150, a 4WD Ranger, a couple of 2WD tractors and 1 4WD
>tractor. I've never stuck either Expedition or the Ranger,
>but everything else has been stuck at one time or another.
>Andthe Ranger and the Expeditions have been close to being
>stuck. Does that mean I am using them to their full
>potential? Doe a couple of inches of mud covering all
>surfaces qualify?
>
>Ed

The point I was trying to make is that, no, if they havn't gotten
stuck, then, no, they aren't being used to their full potential. In a
sort of humorous way. :-)
If you don't push the envelope, you don't know where the limits are.
My Expedition doesn't have a meter, where red means, "You're about to
get stuck!" I'd have to exceed tjhe envelope to get stuck, and I just
don't want to get stuck, so I don't get all that close to the limits
of the thing.
Which means, I'm not using it to it's full potential.
Which means, by extension, if things don't go wrong because you've
exceeded the envelope, you're not using it (whatever "it" is) to it's
full potential.
Thus, very few people actually use things to their full potential.
Including their vehicles.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:38:02 -0700, Cartlon Shew
> wrote:

>On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 08:10:05 -0500, "Snow" >
>wrote:
>
>>Ahh see Im in the North East, where our weather is different, so possibly
>>the percentage of suvee's and how they are used could be dictated by the
>>geographical area??
>>
>
>Hmmm - so because you're more likely to have snow, more people are
>going to be towing boats and trailers?
>
>>Snow...

Makes sense to me.
More snow means harsher & longer winters, means shorter summers, which
means you have to fit all that good stuff into shorter vacations and
fewer days off, which means you have to make each experience more
intense, which obviously means boats! And BBQ! And Beer!

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"