Hell Week for Car Haters

[YSSMAN]

Check out this weeks "Rant" from Autoextremist.com

What a great rant posted this week. I had herd about the "Hummer fiasco" earlier this week, and after going to McDonalds and seeing what it was all about, I have to say that there has been a gross overreaction on the liberal side of the story.

Kids are going to be kids at any point in their life, and no matter how bad you tell them the Hummers are, they are going to think they are cool. Little kids, especially young boys, love big trucks. Why do you think Monster Trucks have always been so popular? The Hummer is the Monster Truck for regular folks, so why not let them have a toy Hummer?

...And there isn't a drop of blame to be thrown at GM either. They give out the licence, they make money, and it does little to promote their truck other than to have a kid who has a toy one on the shelf. Is it irresponsible for GM to licence out the Corvette and Silverado as well? Last time I checked, they burn gasoline too!

Either way, he makes a good point about Woodward and Pebble Beach. These celebrate the glory days of the American automobile, so if you're an American, there isn't a very good reason to miss out on a nice auto show, bit it local or not.

I know I'll be celebrating next weekend with the big Grand Rapids Cruise and the Berger Super Chevy Show, Sierra Club members be damned!

 

[Jim Prower]

Of course, I might debate Hummer's utility as a toy brand, but whatever.

 

[Master_Yoda]

I think Hummers a frickin ugly. I think we should use them only for military use. But I can't stop being form buying a vehicle that gets less then 10mpg, and would even be able to go 100 miles without a refill...To me, that is just sad to see what they do for money. It makes me sad to see that my Governor have a garage full of them. Luckly theres only a couple here. Well there isn't very GM cars over here, other the classic muscle.

I remember going to DC a few years ago, and I would see all these young high school and college students driving there Hummers, and Escalades with those big 24" rims. It makes me sick how much the pop artist influence kids these days. And if you don't think thee modern pop artist is brainwashing these kids, just look at cribs. Every other car is a big ugly SUV clapped with the biggest ugliest rims there is. Everyone at my school thinks there the coolest things to every be invinted. Have we forgotten what SUV's do? I should stop before I get too off topic, cause I know Hummers DO get there share of off road. But I just abosolutly hate a vehicle that get's less then 20mpg.

 

[High-Test]

So.. you hate all semi trucks and trains, and planes?


That's smart.....


These Sierra Club people are stupid. I wonder how many of them own cars?

 

[Jim Prower]

Most of them do. Priuses.

 

[High-Test]

That's even funnier.

Those batteries are loaded with all kinds of fun corrosive acids. Plus,. they aren't any more economical than a civic.

 

[Tornado]

And are less so than the horrible diesel (ee ghads man!) Golf. That being said, Hummers are stupid pieces of trash.

 

[Master_Yoda]

So.. you hate all semi trucks and trains, and planes?


That's smart.....

No, I hate things that get driven, but arn't use for what there ment to use. SUV's were ment to be used off roading in such. But the modern pop culture has changed that image that SUV's were ment to have 24" crome rims. Hell, crome everything.. IT'S STUPID!

 

[Jim Prower]

Yes, that's true, that IS stupid, but let's review what you said, shall we?

But I just abosolutly hate a vehicle that get's less then 20mpg.

A little too general, buddy. Your post could've done without that line.

 

[Master_Yoda]

Yes, that's true, that IS stupid, but let's review what you said, shall we?



A little too general, buddy. Your post could've done without that line.

I don't like those low mpg cars/trucks that just serve no purpose for street/city use. Like a Hummer H2 driving around the city... WTF! Really serves no purpose, thats what I hate. Please if your going to buy a SUV, don't use it for road use, use it off road, what they were ment. There are plenty of cars/minivans/vans that can easly hold as much, or more then a H2, Escalade, Navigator, etc.. you get it?

 

[Jim Prower]

Yeah, I got it.

I'm just asking you to mind how clear you're being next time, got it?

 

[Master_Yoda]

Yeah, I got it.

I'm just asking you to mind how clear you're being next time, got it?

I'm usually not very clear when i've had less sleep then a truck driver, and trying to clear out my house hold ant problem >.<

Now lets get back on topic

EDIT: I decided to read this stupid rant, and I basically read what I expected. As much as I love the car, I hate this rant. I'm definatly not apart of the Sierra Club. Cause I love cars. But I do beleve/ know that global warming is a issue, and that you can't hide the truth. Temperatures are rising and oceans are rising. Not to mention the unusual hurricane season. I also think that them caring what the Sierra club thinks/say so much is total bull****. They need to chill out, let them say what they think, it's there right. I'm not going to defend either one, i'm just saying that they need to let the other side say what they think/beleve and let it go. Cause either side are not going to get there way. No one is going to. I'm don't piticularly like GM or McDonalds. My reason: Well McDonalds is probally the most disgusting place there is. And GM makes a few cars I dis-like... So it's not going to stop people from buying there products. And people are most sertinaly not going to listen to a ranter like him. I say both sides to to chill and stop being so into what the other side does and say.

 

[harrytuttle]

People have protested all sorts of cars in the past, and unless there's a legitimate problem (Ford Pinto), nothing will come of it. Even if there is a problem (Ford Pinto), very little will be done.

On the other hand, I think SUVs in general are a waste. Yes, there's some astounding four-wheeled mechanical experiments out there (Range Rover Sport SS, Porsche Cayenne Turbo S), but since no one drives them off road, and they have less storage than the average wagon/estate, their as useful as udders on a bull. And I blame them for the current state of gas prices. Not the multitudes of air travellers, nor the massive overuse of electricity, not even the wacky Iraqi's. Just SUVs.

Of course, they're also as useful as the guy who owns an Enzo. Or a Ford GT. Likelihood either of those cars will reach more than 50% of their potential: 3%. But they're just much cooler to look at.

The truth is that, like all trends, SUVs will fade. In fact, they are fading. And for this I blame the Hummer lineup. It's so over done, so obviously over-compensating, and so, so tired already, there's actual growing disinterest in SUVs. With this wonderful resurgence of sports cars, in ten years, they'll be saying the same things about 600HP Mustangs and 700HP Corvettes. (Sound familiar?)

People have to get over it. It's as serious and important as who slept with who on Days of Our Lives. The solution is not bitching about it, the solution is finding an answer to the question "What can we use besides petroleum?" Spend your energy figuring that out; giving kids a hard time about what free toy they get isn't doing anything.

 

[Tornado]

On the other hand, I think SUVs in general are a waste. Yes, there's some astounding four-wheeled mechanical experiments out there (Range Rover Sport SS, Porsche Cayenne Turbo S), but since no one drives them off road, and they have less storage than the average wagon/estate, their as useful as udders on a bull.

But the Cayenne Turbo S is silly, stupid fast. And it can go off road. If I had one, I'd drive in in the desert like all of the oil mongers do.

 

[harrytuttle]

But the Cayenne Turbo S is silly, stupid fast. And it can go off road. If I had one, I'd drive in in the desert like all of the oil mongers do.

The Turbo S has very different suspension settings, and the brakes only allow certain sized wheels. Neither of which is conducive to rough dirt trails. But the real issue is the ridiculously small percentage of people who take their SUVs (of any brand) on a trip more difficult than Christmas at grandma's.

 

[Sniffs]

as one of those people who actually USE an SUV for its intended purpose (and destroyed his suspension doing it), i'm a little bit offended. i ran loggers for the past couple years...and I had to go muddin trying to get these guys to work through axle deep mud, huge ass stones for the area, idiots that leave melon scraping ruts just getting the logs out, etc, etc. i've hauled 500 pound coal stoves, 8 200 pound muscly amish who can pick up most cars to get you out of a ditch (for pete's sake...three teenage amish girls got me unstuck!) i've seen the guys routinely working at sites and on farms actually USING theit pickups and SUV's for their original intended purpose.

i don't live in an urban bling-bling neighborhood, or a suburban area fulla minivans. I live way out in the boonies where you spend 50 percent of your time down horrendours rutty potholed backroads with stones that literally crush your fuel lines (i had that happen on my taurus on a half decent dirt) to get around half an hour wait construction zones, and 25 percent of your time dealing with those horrible cracked potholey tar stripped main roads when you DO get around construction zones.

i think we can all thumb our noses at the eco-geeks who take things just a little too far in their "save the environment" crap. what we need, however, is a balance, and I sure don't see that happening.

the buying public will decide the fate of the SUV...but the problem is, once they get killed...THEN they'll be needed somewhere...which is what I believe happened to rear drive at one point. ditto with the Convertable, which was killed off for fear of roll-over standards being enacted that would kill anything but a pedestrian sedan.

Harry Tuttle: remember...wagons have a rep...and minivans are getting it.

 

[Master_Yoda]

Sniffs, like I said, I have nothing wrong with SUV's that are used for there purpose. I understand the point that your coming form, and I 100% agree with what you just said.

 

[McLaren]

You're never going to see SUVs return to being off-road vehicles, never. Not trucks either. Some will off-road, but the fact is that there is no place in many locations where people can just off-road. Many places here in Texas are private property, so they just can't go off-roading.

The fact also remains trucks and SUVs have become too much apart of the US Life Style for carrying equipment, and goods like food, and the such. Bling Bling rims are just a location, as I rarely see any Hummers, Cadillacs, or Lincolns with giant rims. They're just doing what any other truck/SUV is doing. Going from Point A to Point B with bigger payload abilities.

 

[niky]

I've already stated my opinion on the SUV issue previously: that unless you're a card-carrying greenie who doesn't do anything but take the bike wherever you go, you can't complain about them wasting resources, as you're still using too much gasoline, no matter what you drive. Yes, even a Prius is horribly inefficient in conserving fossil fuels.

A Prius driver who does 20,000 miles a year will still use more gas than an SUV driver who does 5,000. So which of them do we throw rocks at?

RE: MPG - we should all put the hate on buses. We've got a couple of sixty seaters at the school, and those get anywhere between 2-3 mpg... if you're lucky. That doesn't include the diesel required to run the airconditioning unit.

Yet these same buses ply commuting routes everyday. Sure, they're pretty efficient when full of people, (at sixty passengers, 120 mpg per head) but what happens just off peak-hours, when there are only ten or so people on board? You're only getting 20 mpg per person, when those same people, in a car-pool, can get (at probably 28 mpg, with four passengers) 112 mpg per head. And when there are five people on the bus, when it's plying the midnight runs? A miserable 10 mpg per head. Worse than if each commuter had his own Hummer.

Yes, for many SUV users (not you, Sniffs... ), they are patently absurd and a sign of selfish conspicuous consumption, but that just makes their sin a little bigger than ours. All of us contribute to the oil crisis... they're just paying more for it than we are.

Putting the hate on SUVs isn't really the way. Opening people's eyes to the wisdom of saving their money and going for something cheaper and more fuel-efficient is. Of course, not everyone will listen, but jerkwads will be jerkwads no matter what. And it's possible that hybrids will become the new automotive status symbol... so while they won't be saving any money, they won't be using as much of our oil as before, either. Everyone's happy.

-----

And, back on topic: Hummer toys as marketing propaganda? That's a laugh. The Sierra club should just sit back and relax. By the time those kids are actually old enough to afford one, there won't enough gasoline in the world to feed them...

 

[1X83Z]

Are we really going to get into the SUV discussion again?

I still don't get why you guys attack Hummers rather than luxury sedans. The fuel economy is quite similar really - you guys just don't like the fact that Hummers are more obvious examples. It's bandwagon jumping really.

 

[YSSMAN]

Well, I really didn't intend this to become an SUV discussion, but whatever. You were kinda supposed to read the article, so I guess I can't blame anyone.

...For those who don't want to read it:

There is some talk about the Sierra Club and a few other folks causing a big hubbub about the Hummers in the Happy Meals, general consensus is to "just get over it."

The part I was getting at was the fact that this is the time in which most of the big car shows happen, and much to the dismay to the folks at the anti-car Sierra Club, it happens across the country in almost every major city.

It was kinda meant to be a semi-warning that the days of the Woodward Cruise and Pebble Beach could be numbered if the Sierra Club, and to some extent the Democratic Party, have their way.

My overall point?

Get out there and enjoy the weather and the cars. You're seeing American history at any show, and if you are a car guy, you deserve to be there. Talk to the owners, share stories, etc. Next thing you know, there will be snow on the ground, the weather will be colder, and the only kind of car shows you can attend will be the indoor, on concrete, kind...

 

[Pupik]

You know, I've received letters for the Sierra Club, I'm for a lot of their agenda, incidently: Land and animal preservation, recycling, careful planning of businesses and communities to preserve the fragile environmental areas.

However, their constant anti-car bashing is outdated, pointless, and without merit. Automobiles produce very little toxins (unless entire cars are dumped illegally) and even the Hummer H1 produces very few greenhouse gasses per gallon of gas than any car produced 15-20 years ago, due to restrictions that automakers and environmentalists agreed on.

Not to mention, many civilian-owned Hummers almost never go off road because the owners are usually pousers that take them to shopping malls and trendy plazas, not parks and recreational areas. It's a pity, because it's the one thing that piece of machinery can do right and do so perfectly.

Cars are here to stay, they aren't going anywhere in most of this country for practical and personal reasons. I like to ride my bicycle for pleasure or excercise, but not for transportantion and conveyance. The reason is it's just not safe nor productive to do so in 99.9% of this country. Not to mention, it's very hot here.

Thus, the Sierra Club letters go straight to the shredder nowadays; they are close to having me as a member, but I don't make a habit of telling people what to do, when it doesn't harm anybody or anything.

 

[TheCracker]

Complaining that McDonalds is giving away model Hummers with happy meals?

McDonalds are the Hummer of the fast-food world, if these people don't like the impact that the H2 supposedly has on the enviroment then they should'nt be taking their kids to McDonalds in the first place!

I would say that the fast-food giant has a worse enviromentle impact worldwide than a few overated SUV's, certainly a worse impact than a 1:64th scale toy does.

 

[Duke]

I still don't get why you guys attack Hummers rather than luxury sedans. The fuel economy is quite similar really - you guys just don't like the fact that Hummers are more obvious examples. It's bandwagon jumping really.

Meh, it's not bandwagon jumping, really. You of all people should not like Hummers since their acceleration is quite mediocre for their fuel consumption and their level of luxury accomodation is pathetic for their price range. And since you always decry "handling" as an overrated commodity that is wasted in most daily driving, I would expect you to feel the same way about the one strength older-model Hummers do have, which is off-road ability.

In a move that's either incredibly stupid or incredibly arrogant, Hummer's recent commercials actually highlight overcompensation as the main reason to buy one. Before, their commercials often focused on the vehicle's ABILITIES. But as each generation of Hummers becomes more of a poseurmobile, the commercials have quite blatantly switched to IMAGE as the most important benefit of owning a Hummer. In the latest series, a number of obviously whitebread suburbanites are subjected to minor insults at the hands of other whitebread suburbanites. The offended wimps immediately dash off to the Hummer dealer to buy themselves some power and respect. It's quite arrogantly insulting to Hummer's own customers, in fact.

 

[exigeracer]

I don't like those low mpg cars/trucks that just serve no purpose for street/city use. Like a Hummer H2 driving around the city...

The Hummer H2's purpose was not to be an off-road machine. Do you really think that GM made the H2 saying "Alright folks, let's make a capable off-road machine" and when they sold it, all of the engineers and technicians said "Bollocks! They're not driving them off-road!"? No.

Of course, they're also as useful as the guy who owns an Enzo. Or a Ford GT. Likelihood either of those cars will reach more than 50% of their potential: 3%.

I'm not debating the credibility of this statistic, but I would like to see a source of these numbers.

 

[Tornado]

The Hummer H2's purpose was not to be an off-road machine. Do you really think that GM made the H2 saying "Alright folks, let's make a capable off-road machine" and when they sold it, all of the engineers and technicians said "Bollocks! They're not driving them off-road!"? No.

Actually, yes. The Hummer H2 was merely a purpose-built Chevy Tahoe. They knew that it would need to go off-road, and designed it as such. But they didn't expect it to go off-road. The H3 is the first of them that isn't really that special off-road.

I still don't get why you guys attack Hummers rather than luxury sedans. The fuel economy is quite similar really - you guys just don't like the fact that Hummers are more obvious examples. It's bandwagon jumping really.

You answered your own question.

 

[Master_Yoda]

The Hummer H2's purpose was not to be an off-road machine. Do you really think that GM made the H2 saying "Alright folks, let's make a capable off-road machine" and when they sold it, all of the engineers and technicians said "Bollocks! They're not driving them off-road!"? No.

My exact point there buddy. I know the H2 is not ment for off-road. Thats why I hate it so much. Hummers in the first place were deseigned for off-road. Now the big bling-bling came they make everything for street use. WTF!

 

[YSSMAN]

Actually, the H2 was designed to be able to handle most situations thrown at it, similar to the H1 that preceeded it. Obviously there were limitations to what the GMT800 platform could handle, but the H2 nevertheless was able to do the majority of what the H1 could do off-road, despite the fact it had the on-road manners of a Chevrolet Tahoe.

It is the people who bought the H2 that made it seem like it couldn't do well off-road. Throwing 26" wheels on anything is going to limit its off-pavement capabilities quite quickly (uless of course it is a bike), but regular H2s are some of the best civilian trucks you can use out there. The low-range selectable 4WD is quite capable, along with the monster torque converters, the suspension allows for plenty of travel, and the tire size is just right.

...Granted, you aren't going to be able to do the Baha 1000 with a bone-stock H2, but I'd be willing to bet that one could outdo the Jeep Commander and it's other "Trail Rated" siblings on the Rubicon Trail.

 

[harrytuttle]

Of course, they're also as useful as the guy who owns an Enzo. Or a Ford GT. Likelihood either of those cars will reach more than 50% of their potential: 3%.

I'm not debating the credibility of this statistic, but I would like to see a source of these numbers.

I got it from browneye.com. I made it up. But given my own and many others' observations, high-performance cars spend most of their time not being driven. The times that they are driven, much of that time is local or stuck in traffic. Then there is the fact that so few would risk such expensive cars on the racetrack or with their license. On top of that, there's the fact that those who actually can afford these cars, few know how to drive them like they were designed to be driven.

It's like the search for extra-terrestrial life:

[likelihood of intelligent life on planet X] = %[stars with planets] * %[planets that are solid] * %[solid planets with water] ...

The anwers is really, really small.

^This is, of course, all in regards to US citizens.

 

[Tornado]

...Granted, you aren't going to be able to do the Baha 1000 with a bone-stock H2, but I'd be willing to bet that one could outdo the Jeep Commander and it's other "Trail Rated" siblings on the Rubicon Trail.

I would go so far as to guarantee that a Wrangler could out-do the H2, with the last version of the Cherokee right behind it. And I'm sure that more Jeeps are used off-road than Hummers.

I got it from browneye.com. I made it up. But given my own and many others' observations, high-performance cars spend most of their time not being driven. The times that they are driven, much of that time is local or stuck in traffic. Then there is the fact that so few would risk such expensive cars on the racetrack or with their license. On top of that, there's the fact that those who actually can afford these cars, few know how to drive them like they were designed to be driven.

While we are pulling statistics out of our asses, I would like to go on record as saying that I'm sure more supercar owners at least use one of their abilities (like, speeding or being stupid on highways) more than SUV owners do (which, with real SUV's, means going off-road; and with crossovers means nothing, as they are useless).