Best mpg suv?

[DarbyWalters]

Originally Posted by skewbe

We are all part of a much larger picture, ignoring that fact is counter to intelligence.

Ignoring the fact would mean that I wouldn't be here at all.

Originally Posted by skewbe

Here in the land of the SUV we represent 5% of the worlds population and emit %25 of greenhouse gasses, just wait till china catches up with us. What example are we setting?

To imply that the 25% of greenhouse gases are caused mainly from SUV exhaust is erroneous. There are many other causes of greenhouse gases that are greater than the 5% SUV contributors.

Whether you can read the meaning in my posts or not, I am all for more efficient use of energy resources. There are limited supplies and some harmful consequences of using fossil fuels. Just like some that hear about "hypermiling" and say it is not safe, they are taking a few random samples and forming conclusions based on those few examples. I do understand there is a big picture but decisions are sometimes/most times made on a smaller scale.

Anyway, it has been good reading and I hope nobody has taken anything I typed as a personal attack...things get jumbled in translation and skewed by the choice of words...all is good

[skewbe]

I like this one too, I don't think it is all that uncommon:


I love the smile on this lady, got the fuel tank in back too:

[rh77]

This has gotten completely out of control! I've driven FWD, RWD, AWD, and 4WD with Low-range, and it depends on the application.

For the one time a year that I need a 4-wheel drive vehicle, I rent one. Why pay for something you wont use??? If someone is concerned about FE, the answer is obvious.

Look back at the posts in this thread. People who currently drive AWD/4WD vehicles are vehimently backing them and arguing that they're needed for the "extra traction". FWD folks insist that's all they need.

I used to swear by AWD, but for performance. 4-wheels spinning in ice/snow seems to give you 2 pivot points for loss of control -- especially during deceleration. It all comes down to the tire choice. Pure and simple.

One cannot argue that an AWD is less efficient: more drivetrain loss. So, what gives? Sorry for suggesting a car -- too bad so many can't drive in bad weather with one...

RH77

[brucepick]

Volvo 240 wagon.
Or a 940 if they rather, same car with updated skin.
Will hold an amazing amount of stuff, and even more than that if you drop the rear seats down.

If you don't think they can handle snow, remember they were designed in Sweden and then watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSZLSfBDyhs

Current "revised" EPA 17/22 (auto tranny), but I got over 30 highway consistently this summer. About 5 mpg better for the ones with a stick.

[trebuchet03]

Originally Posted by DarbyWalters

Was not an attack,...

My apologies

Originally Posted by DarbyWalters

The vehicle is useless unless you turn the key...what is your point? He stated in the first post that a SUV Auto w/ 4x4 and 23 combined was something he was looking at...and you did try to imply that all the vehicles in the ditches were AWD/4x4 SUVs and Trucks.

Yeah, I rescanned the OP looking for awd - and missed the 4x4 part No, I did not imply that. I said, if you don't need it - having it is useless. Just as, if you're commuting 40+ miles to work, without access to mass transportation - a car becomes a need. As an example, given that I chose to live near where I work and study - at this moment, a car is not one of my needs

He stated that the need to haul some stuff was weekly...not a couple times a year. If you have to make three trips in a Smart or one in a SUV, which is "better"? Saving time, less time on the road, ect.

Which is why several members, including myself, have suggested to make sure his hauling needs are to the extent necessary. So you make 1 trip with a wagon or 1 trip with an SUV one time per week... The rest of the week, you take a fuel hit with the SUV.

Who said leave the "snow tires on all year"? It was a comment about a FWD with snow tires could go a long way. What doesn't make sense? Your assumptions.

No, that was not a reference to FWD ... It uses the same logic as:
4/awd has better traction
therefore
4/awd is better and thus, seek this option
corollary
winter tires have better traction
therefore
winter tires are better and thus, seek this option

The operating costs keeping winter tires on year round go up - sure, it's better on traction - but looking at the entire picture, it's not a good idea.
corollary
The operating costs of 4/awd when you're not using it go up - sure, it's better on traction - but looking at the entire picture (location, et. al.)....

You might want to read the last line or so of the first post. He states that a SUV with an Auto 4x4 and 23 mpg combined would be good.

Yeah, I scanned for awd and missed it My apologies

Anyway, it has been good reading and I hope nobody has taken anything I typed as a personal attack...things get jumbled in translation and skewed by the choice of words...all is good

Thanks for saying that -- and I too concur.... One negative to the internets - no sense of inflection

----

For the one time a year that I need a 4-wheel drive vehicle, I rent one. Why pay for something you wont use??? If someone is concerned about FE, the answer is obvious.

I don't mean to gloat by responding to your post...... but that's the exact scenario I have been trying to drive home (ha! a pun! - wait, puns aren't funny). Economically, it makes sense - energy wise, it makes sense.... Plus, no compromise - something that seems to have been forgotten and advertised against in America :/

[trebuchet03]

Originally Posted by skewbe

Cant wait till this guy and several billion of his buddies get SUV sized Egos

Holy crap man Looks like he's hauling soda bottles too

[skewbe]

Originally Posted by DarbyWalters

...To imply that the 25% of greenhouse gases are caused mainly from SUV exhaust is erroneous...

To imply that that was the implication is erroneous.

[omgwtfbyobbq]

Originally Posted by trebuchet03

Off topic... but... It wasn't a re-ring job, it was a complete engine replacement (which is why it took so long to go from initial recall letter to the "come in for replacement" letter). They pulled the engine, put the accessories from the old engine on the new one - dropped in the new engine. The labor cost for a tear down and rebuild were probably higher than this pull swap and drop o.0

I think it'll still be a re-ring job if ya catch my drift. Think of how car parts stores are able to offer lifetime warranties on stuff... Sure, labor here may be expensive, so to get around that we minimize it here and ship the parts out of he country to be rebuilt. Course, this is just speculation, but imo very likely. I don't think Nissan would junk perfectly good cores.

[DarbyWalters]

Originally Posted by skewbe

To imply that that was the implication is erroneous.

Then state it as such...In the land of oppulance or something to that effect...when you repeated state SUV you are singling out the same.

Originally Posted by skewbe

Cant wait till this guy and several billion of his buddies get SUV sized Egos

I don't have a problem with people who abhore SUVs but accept the recognition of the same. I also don't like it when I see one person driving a Ford Expedition to the grocery store to grab two bags of groceries...especially when they have a Mercedes 300C in the driveway which would be a better choice ;-) for gathering groceries! I think this horse has been beat to death...back to normal programming for me...

[skewbe]

Originally Posted by DarbyWalters

Then state it as such...In the land of oppulance or something to that effect...

SUV in that context is a symptom. Rationalize rampant SUV use better before you call me to task on some poetic licensing, eh?

to imply that it is oppulence and not just plain wastefullness is erroneous

to imply that anywhere near 10% of suvs are anywhere near fully utilized is erroneous.

to focus on verbiage instead of wastefulness is erroneous