| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"JTEM" |
| Date: |
01 Dec 2004 12:42:43 AM |
| Object: |
Serious Question About Cars |
This is a tough one -- don't know if anyone can
answer -- but here it goes:
What's a reasonably priced alternative to an SUV?
Not that I'm in the market (I'm not), but the roomie
is really scratching his head. In fact, he's on the
verge of buying another Jeep.
Occasionally -- and this may surprise you -- I'm not
the most optimistic person.
Wait. I'm serious.
Anyhow, my constant "doom & gloom" concerning
the impending oil shortage (the likes of which will
make the 1970s embargo look like child's play) was
beginning to have some effect on the roomie, and,
together with gasoline prices, really opened him to
the idea of something more economical.
Problem is, he's a bit spoiled. He's spent the last
three years wrapped in a leather cocoon, sitting
high above mere "cars," and with all the confidence
of 4WD & knowing that if a Volvo should smack into
him it'll mean a very bad day for the Volvo owner...
just like it did last time(*).
His first & most obvious choice was a smaller &
cheaper SUV, something with better gas mileage.
However, most of these don't show a significant
improvement in mileage, and pretty much all of them
more than make up for their lower price tags by
lavishing their vehicles with spartan interiors, the
likes of which any Corolla owner would surely
scoff at.
One exception in the gas mileage department is the
Honda CR-V. Unfortunately, Honda's prices are
closer to their larger competitors than most other
alternatives (higher, in some cases, given Honda's
lousy incentives), and their interior is every bit
as spartan as a 1970s vintage economy car.
The most notable exception to the "spartan interior"
rule is the Jeep Liberty, and it's price can actually
come to thousands lower than the Honda with the
(dealer plus Jeep) incentives. But it's mileage is the
same as its larger "Grand Cherokee" cousin. Exactly
the same. No savings.
So then you turn to cars. Well, sort of. Just asking
for 4WD eliminates the vast majority of cars out
there. They simply don't offer it. Of the few that do,
half or so are out of the question because they're
sub-compacts, and it's just too much of a jump for
the roomie to make.
(This is really too bad, because the Toyota Matrix,
for example, looks like it could be a lot of fun).
Most of the others are hyper expensive. There's
the all-wheel-drive BMW, the Mercedes 4matic
and, of course, the previously mentioned Volvo.
All cost significantly more than even the Jeep Grand
Cherokee. So he'd be giving up a lot (height & space)
in exchange for not saving a penny. Heck, even the
fuel costs aren't an issue, because the price difference
would be more than enough to fill his gas tank for
the next one to three years.
So that leaves what, sedans?
Any suggestions?
* The roomie was rear-ended at a stop light a few
years ago, by a young guy in a Volvo. The impact
left extensive damage to his Jeep Grand Cherokee
(it poked a hole in his bumper cover), while the
Volvo driver got off with nothing more than a
damaged bumper... and a crushed grill, hood &
fender.
.
|
|
| User: "Hypatia Kosh" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question About Cars |
01 Dec 2004 12:39:24 PM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Ruednfl6E7nZ-zDcRVn-gA@comcast.com>...
This is a tough one -- don't know if anyone can
answer -- but here it goes:
What's a reasonably priced alternative to an SUV?
Why not buy a pre-owned German luxury car? 3, 4 year old Mercedes or
something. While you'll definitely be riding lower, you get better
handling and performance than with your typical SUV (especially with
that lower center of gravity) and somewhat better gas mileage simply
because of the lower mass. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but you used to
be able to get Diesel Mercedes as well, which is even better as far as
gas mileage goes, and often--though not right now--lower price per
gallon.) On the inside, you get all the extras that your friend is
accustomed to--if not more.
Well, it doesn't have an OnStar system, but you can get something
similar that plugs into your car for under $1000. (Me, I just use
MapQuest.)
If he really wants to ride high, though, I would suggest a pickup
truck. :)
-Hypatia
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "chibiabos" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question About Cars |
01 Dec 2004 10:31:15 AM |
|
|
In article <Ruednfl6E7nZ-zDcRVn-gA@comcast.com>, JTEM
<gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
This is a tough one -- don't know if anyone can
answer -- but here it goes:
What's a reasonably priced alternative to an SUV?
Any suggestions?
Check out a moderately priced compact pickup, a Toyota Tacoma, Nissan
Frontier, etc. Extended cabs give plenty of seating plus you get lots
of cargo area. Add a sporty camper shell for the SUV look.
These trucks start at $13,000 brand new, and you can add various
packages to upgrade the interior, ride, body trim, etc. Mileage stays
in the 22-28mpg range for most of 'em.
Most SUVs are already built on pickup frames, so if you live in a state
where the VLF makes a distinction between a "car" and a "commercial
truck" (like California), you're not saving anything by buying an SUV
over a truck.
I love my Dodge Ram Hemi 2500 longbed to death. It's definitely NOT a
compact truck, and the mileage sucks big time, but I've owned nothing
but trucks (mostly compact) for the past 30 years and wouldn't drive
anything else.
-chib
--
Member of SMASH
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
(email: change out to in)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Kolle" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question About Cars |
01 Dec 2004 07:31:32 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 08:31:15 -0800, chibiabos <chib@outreach.com>
thought hard and said:
In article <Ruednfl6E7nZ-zDcRVn-gA@comcast.com>, JTEM
<gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
This is a tough one -- don't know if anyone can
answer -- but here it goes:
What's a reasonably priced alternative to an SUV?
Any suggestions?
Check out a moderately priced compact pickup, a Toyota Tacoma, Nissan
Frontier, etc. Extended cabs give plenty of seating plus you get lots
of cargo area. Add a sporty camper shell for the SUV look.
These trucks start at $13,000 brand new, and you can add various
packages to upgrade the interior, ride, body trim, etc. Mileage stays
in the 22-28mpg range for most of 'em.
Most SUVs are already built on pickup frames, so if you live in a state
where the VLF makes a distinction between a "car" and a "commercial
truck" (like California), you're not saving anything by buying an SUV
over a truck.
I love my Dodge Ram Hemi 2500 longbed to death. It's definitely NOT a
compact truck, and the mileage sucks big time, but I've owned nothing
but trucks (mostly compact) for the past 30 years and wouldn't drive
anything else.
-chib
Preach it, brotha!
--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 16 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, Krzysztof Penderecki, and Geirr Tveitt are my Gods.
Head of EAC Denial Department and Madly Insane Scientist.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "towelie" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question About Cars |
01 Dec 2004 10:46:43 AM |
|
|
TV's chibiabos wrote:
In article <Ruednfl6E7nZ-zDcRVn-gA@comcast.com>, JTEM
<gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
This is a tough one -- don't know if anyone can
answer -- but here it goes:
What's a reasonably priced alternative to an SUV?
Any suggestions?
Check out a moderately priced compact pickup, a Toyota Tacoma, Nissan
Frontier, etc. Extended cabs give plenty of seating plus you get lots
of cargo area. Add a sporty camper shell for the SUV look.
That wouldn't be much of an improvement over an SUV. Much less interior
space, and the same poor handling.
These trucks start at $13,000 brand new, and you can add various
packages to upgrade the interior, ride, body trim, etc. Mileage stays
in the 22-28mpg range for most of 'em.
With a 4-cylinder engine. From what the OP said, I doubt his friend would
be satisfied with a 4-banger.
Most SUVs are already built on pickup frames, so if you live in a
state where the VLF makes a distinction between a "car" and a
"commercial truck" (like California), you're not saving anything by
buying an SUV over a truck.
I love my Dodge Ram Hemi 2500 longbed to death. It's definitely NOT a
compact truck, and the mileage sucks big time, but I've owned nothing
but trucks (mostly compact) for the past 30 years and wouldn't drive
anything else.
I rented a 2005 Dodge 1500 with the 4.7 liter V8 engine, and the mileage was
very poor. I've heard the mileage is really bad in the Hemi, in the
neighborhood of 12-15 on the highway. Is it really that bad? I imagine the
gobs of power more than make up for it.
--
"Them white boys had me on crystal meth" - some crackhead in GTA:SA
aa #2133
ap #19
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question About Cars |
01 Dec 2004 04:25:20 PM |
|
|
"towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote
I rented a 2005 Dodge 1500 with the 4.7 liter V8 engine,
and the mileage was very poor.
This was always true for Chryslers, or at least for the past
15 years or so.
The rule seems to be that you can look at a similar sized
engine from the competition, deduct about 5 MPG from
their milage rating and you'd get the fuel economy for the
Chrysler.
Things have actually gotten "worse" (and I put that in quotes
because it's hardly an objective call) since Daimler bought
them.
There's something of a clash of cultures going on.
In Europe, the game has always been about size, squeezing
the most ponies out of the smallest engine. Here in the
United States -- well, for the last 30 years or so -- it's all
about fuel economy.
Yeah, it's more complicated then that with, what, "Fleet
Averages" and the like, but you get the idea...
Back in the 1970s this lead to some amazing contradictions
in the auto world. At one point you had a 7-liter Cadillac
that was much larger than & got better fuel economy than
a 4-liter Mercedes... while the Mercedes easily spit out
more horsepower.
It was simply a matter of competing goals.
"Fleet Averages" were never a problem for Chrysler, not
since the very early 1980s, as the vast majority of their
cars were smaller, 4 cylinder models. There was the
Omni, the K cars and then some larger, cushier models
based on these. They sold hundreds of K cars (including
"LaBarons" and other knock offs) for every Plymouth
Fury, so fuel economy just wasn't an issue. They couldn't
fail to meet fleet averages if they tried.
.
|
|
|
| User: "towelie" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question About Cars |
01 Dec 2004 06:49:31 PM |
|
|
TV's JTEM wrote:
"towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote
I rented a 2005 Dodge 1500 with the 4.7 liter V8 engine,
and the mileage was very poor.
This was always true for Chryslers, or at least for the past
15 years or so.
The rule seems to be that you can look at a similar sized
engine from the competition, deduct about 5 MPG from
their milage rating and you'd get the fuel economy for the
Chrysler.
Things have actually gotten "worse" (and I put that in quotes
because it's hardly an objective call) since Daimler bought
them.
There's something of a clash of cultures going on.
In Europe, the game has always been about size, squeezing
the most ponies out of the smallest engine. Here in the
United States -- well, for the last 30 years or so -- it's all
about fuel economy.
Yeah, it's more complicated then that with, what, "Fleet
Averages" and the like, but you get the idea...
Back in the 1970s this lead to some amazing contradictions
in the auto world. At one point you had a 7-liter Cadillac
that was much larger than & got better fuel economy than
a 4-liter Mercedes... while the Mercedes easily spit out
more horsepower.
The Cadillac V8 of the mid-1970's was 500 cubic inches and put out less than
200 horsepower. Nowdays, many 2.0 liter engines put out over 200 horses.
--
"Them white boys had me on crystal meth" - some crackhead in GTA:SA
aa #2133
ap #19
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question About Cars |
01 Dec 2004 11:11:10 PM |
|
|
"towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote
Back in the 1970s this lead to some amazing contradictions
in the auto world. At one point you had a 7-liter Cadillac
that was much larger than & got better fuel economy than
a 4-liter Mercedes... while the Mercedes easily spit out
more horsepower.
The Cadillac V8 of the mid-1970's was 500 cubic inches and
put out less than 200 horsepower. Nowdays, many 2.0 liter
engines put out over 200 horses.
Well that oversized engine easily towed a much bigger car than
it's competition and delivered significantly better fuel economy.
The Mercedes, in turn, had more horsepower and delivered
more performance on a much smaller engine.
Like I said, there were some amazing contradictions...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question About Cars |
01 Dec 2004 09:51:09 PM |
|
|
towelie wrote:
The Cadillac V8 of the mid-1970's was 500 cubic inches and put out less than
200 horsepower. Nowdays, many 2.0 liter engines put out over 200 horses.
Only one year (1976) was under 200 hp. But you won't find
many 2000 cc engines putting out 360 ft lbs torque at 2000
rpm...which is what a Caddy needs.
--
Jim
Visit the Selectric Typewriter Museum!
http://www.selectric.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "towelie" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question About Cars |
01 Dec 2004 11:40:09 PM |
|
|
TV's J Forbes wrote:
towelie wrote:
The Cadillac V8 of the mid-1970's was 500 cubic inches and put out
less than 200 horsepower. Nowdays, many 2.0 liter engines put out
over 200 horses.
Only one year (1976) was under 200 hp. But you won't find
many 2000 cc engines putting out 360 ft lbs torque at 2000
rpm...which is what a Caddy needs.
Very true. Still, a 500 c.i.d. engine putting out under 200 horsepower is
pretty pitiful. Blame Uncle Sam and his strangling emissions controls.
I imagine one could build a Cadillac 500 to create gobs of power. I've
heard of the older 472 used in hot rods. It was pretty hot from the
factory, in the late sixties (~360-375 rated HP? Just a guess.)
Speaking of big blocks, I have a question and maybe you can answer it for
me. My dad is in the process of buying an old 72 Chevy 1-ton truck. The
guy that is selling it to him said it had a 41x cubic inch engine (he said
somewhere between 411 and 419, I can't remember exactly what he said.) I've
never heard of a Chevy engine in that range. I've heard of the 413 Chrysler
wedge, but that's the only engine in that range that I'm aware of. The
Chevy big blocks that I'm aware of are the 366, 396, 402 (marketed as a 396
in Chevelles and Camaros and as a 400 in Caprices and Impalas), 427, and
454. I'm not including the old W-block 348-409-427 engine, just the later
big block. I haven't had a chance to look at the engine, but my dad says it
looks like a big block Chevy. I think the guy just doesn't know what he's
talking about.
--
"Them white boys had me on crystal meth" - some crackhead in GTA:SA
aa #2133
ap #19
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question About Cars |
02 Dec 2004 12:01:13 AM |
|
|
towelie wrote:
TV's J Forbes wrote:
towelie wrote:
The Cadillac V8 of the mid-1970's was 500 cubic inches and put out
less than 200 horsepower. Nowdays, many 2.0 liter engines put out
over 200 horses.
Only one year (1976) was under 200 hp. But you won't find
many 2000 cc engines putting out 360 ft lbs torque at 2000
rpm...which is what a Caddy needs.
Very true. Still, a 500 c.i.d. engine putting out under 200 horsepower is
pretty pitiful. Blame Uncle Sam and his strangling emissions controls.
The emissions controls were necessary, and it only took a
decade or so for Detroit to figure out how to get
performance, economy, and cleaner air from the same engine.
Besides, as I mentioned, a Caddy needs torque, not hp.
Those engines had very restrictive exhaust systems, and very
short duration cams, which didn't hurt low end torque, but
they did kill higher rpm hp. The hp rating system changed
in 1972, going from gross to net, and also at different
temperature, which accounted for about 30% of the reduction
in the numbers.
I imagine one could build a Cadillac 500 to create gobs of power. I've
heard of the older 472 used in hot rods. It was pretty hot from the
factory, in the late sixties (~360-375 rated HP? Just a guess.)
Speaking of big blocks, I have a question and maybe you can answer it for
me. My dad is in the process of buying an old 72 Chevy 1-ton truck. The
guy that is selling it to him said it had a 41x cubic inch engine (he said
somewhere between 411 and 419, I can't remember exactly what he said.) I've
never heard of a Chevy engine in that range. I've heard of the 413 Chrysler
wedge, but that's the only engine in that range that I'm aware of. The
Chevy big blocks that I'm aware of are the 366, 396, 402 (marketed as a 396
in Chevelles and Camaros and as a 400 in Caprices and Impalas), 427, and
454. I'm not including the old W-block 348-409-427 engine, just the later
big block. I haven't had a chance to look at the engine, but my dad says it
looks like a big block Chevy. I think the guy just doesn't know what he's
talking about.
The big block Chevys were just the ones you mentioned, so I
agree that the seller probably doesn't know what he's
talking about.
--
Jim
Visit the Selectric Typewriter Museum!
http://www.selectric.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "towelie" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question About Cars |
05 Dec 2004 05:04:31 AM |
|
|
TV's J Forbes wrote:
Speaking of big blocks, I have a question and maybe you can answer
it for me. My dad is in the process of buying an old 72 Chevy 1-ton
truck. The guy that is selling it to him said it had a 41x cubic
inch engine (he said somewhere between 411 and 419, I can't remember
exactly what he said.) I've never heard of a Chevy engine in that
range. I've heard of the 413 Chrysler wedge, but that's the only
engine in that range that I'm aware of. The Chevy big blocks that
I'm aware of are the 366, 396, 402 (marketed as a 396 in Chevelles
and Camaros and as a 400 in Caprices and Impalas), 427, and 454.
I'm not including the old W-block 348-409-427 engine, just the later
big block. I haven't had a chance to look at the engine, but my dad
says it looks like a big block Chevy. I think the guy just doesn't
know what he's talking about.
The big block Chevys were just the ones you mentioned, so I
agree that the seller probably doesn't know what he's
talking about.
I saw the truck today, and the engine is a 402.
--
"Them white boys had me on crystal meth" - some crackhead in GTA:SA
aa #2133
ap #19
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "chibiabos" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question About Cars |
01 Dec 2004 06:19:59 PM |
|
|
In article <316arhF370qotU1@individual.net>, towelie
<bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote:
TV's chibiabos wrote:
In article <Ruednfl6E7nZ-zDcRVn-gA@comcast.com>, JTEM
<gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
This is a tough one -- don't know if anyone can
answer -- but here it goes:
What's a reasonably priced alternative to an SUV?
Any suggestions?
Check out a moderately priced compact pickup, a Toyota Tacoma, Nissan
Frontier, etc. Extended cabs give plenty of seating plus you get lots
of cargo area. Add a sporty camper shell for the SUV look.
That wouldn't be much of an improvement over an SUV. Much less interior
space, and the same poor handling.
These trucks start at $13,000 brand new, and you can add various
packages to upgrade the interior, ride, body trim, etc. Mileage stays
in the 22-28mpg range for most of 'em.
With a 4-cylinder engine. From what the OP said, I doubt his friend would
be satisfied with a 4-banger.
Most SUVs are already built on pickup frames, so if you live in a
state where the VLF makes a distinction between a "car" and a
"commercial truck" (like California), you're not saving anything by
buying an SUV over a truck.
I love my Dodge Ram Hemi 2500 longbed to death. It's definitely NOT a
compact truck, and the mileage sucks big time, but I've owned nothing
but trucks (mostly compact) for the past 30 years and wouldn't drive
anything else.
I rented a 2005 Dodge 1500 with the 4.7 liter V8 engine, and the mileage was
very poor. I've heard the mileage is really bad in the Hemi, in the
neighborhood of 12-15 on the highway. Is it really that bad? I imagine the
gobs of power more than make up for it.
That mileage is accurate. I top out at 16mpg on the highway, around 10
on city streets.
The Hemi has a nice, satisfying rumble, though. And the bumpersticker
on the back says it all: "Hummer Recovery Vehicle" :)
-chib
--
Member of SMASH
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
(email: change out to in)
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question About Cars |
01 Dec 2004 11:21:38 PM |
|
|
"chibiabos" <chib@outreach.com> wrote
The Hemi has a nice, satisfying rumble, though. And
the bumpersticker on the back says it all: "Hummer
Recovery Vehicle" :)
That's not saying much, considering that GM has to slap
a turbo charger on the Hummer (the H1, the "Real"
Hummer) just to get it up around 200 HP.
They're built for durability, not speed. The diesel engine
doesn't help matters either.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question About Cars |
01 Dec 2004 11:22:27 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 00:21:38 -0500, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com>
wrote, akin to the neighing and braying of farmyard animals:
"chibiabos" <chib@outreach.com> wrote
The Hemi has a nice, satisfying rumble, though. And
the bumpersticker on the back says it all: "Hummer
Recovery Vehicle" :)
That's not saying much, considering that GM has to slap
a turbo charger on the Hummer (the H1, the "Real"
Hummer) just to get it up around 200 HP.
They're built for durability, not speed. The diesel engine
doesn't help matters either.
Well, diesels aren't famed for horsepower. Torque is where they're at.
---
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be
adorned by a downright moron."
H. L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question About Cars |
01 Dec 2004 11:33:31 PM |
|
|
"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote
Well, diesels aren't famed for horsepower. Torque is where
they're at.
Yes. The Hummer (the "Real" Hummer, the H1) is a truck. It
wasn't designed for styling, for comfort or for anything but
work in what may be hostile conditions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question About Cars |
01 Dec 2004 11:47:54 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 00:33:31 -0500, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com>
wrote, akin to the neighing and braying of farmyard animals:
"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote
Well, diesels aren't famed for horsepower. Torque is where
they're at.
Yes. The Hummer (the "Real" Hummer, the H1) is a truck. It
wasn't designed for styling, for comfort or for anything but
work in what may be hostile conditions.
Does it well, too. However, the H2 is a different story (I saw a video
of a Jeep-meet that had an H2 turn up to show up the CJs/TJs and had
to be pulled off a 12-inch stump [by a Jeep], after the driver managed
to high-center himself on it).
The H1 is *ugly, but really good at what it's designed for. The H2 is
just *ugly. Frankly, I'd be surprised if 99.9% of drivers ever faced a
situation that needed the H1 (or couldn't be handled better by a Jeep
than the H2).
---
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be
adorned by a downright moron."
H. L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question About Cars |
01 Dec 2004 12:14:42 PM |
|
|
on 01 Dec 2004 in alt.atheism, towelie dropped trou, farted, whirled, then
shouted:
That wouldn't be much of an improvement over an SUV. Much less interior
space, and the same poor handling.
Right, but try taking a spineless Infiniti SUV off-road. I drove my rear-
wheel drive F-150 down a crazy-***** dirt trail. When I came to a stop, I
distinctly heard a little voice saying "more..."
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
______________
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question About Cars |
01 Dec 2004 10:52:46 AM |
|
|
towelie <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote:
TV's chibiabos wrote:
In article <Ruednfl6E7nZ-zDcRVn-gA@comcast.com>, JTEM
<gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
This is a tough one -- don't know if anyone can
answer -- but here it goes:
What's a reasonably priced alternative to an SUV?
Any suggestions?
Check out a moderately priced compact pickup, a Toyota Tacoma, Nissan
Frontier, etc. Extended cabs give plenty of seating plus you get lots
of cargo area. Add a sporty camper shell for the SUV look.
That wouldn't be much of an improvement over an SUV. Much less
interior space, and the same poor handling.
These trucks start at $13,000 brand new, and you can add various
packages to upgrade the interior, ride, body trim, etc. Mileage stays
in the 22-28mpg range for most of 'em.
With a 4-cylinder engine. From what the OP said, I doubt his friend
would be satisfied with a 4-banger.
Most SUVs are already built on pickup frames, so if you live in a
state where the VLF makes a distinction between a "car" and a
"commercial truck" (like California), you're not saving anything by
buying an SUV over a truck.
I love my Dodge Ram Hemi 2500 longbed to death. It's definitely NOT a
compact truck, and the mileage sucks big time, but I've owned nothing
but trucks (mostly compact) for the past 30 years and wouldn't drive
anything else.
I rented a 2005 Dodge 1500 with the 4.7 liter V8 engine, and the
mileage was very poor. I've heard the mileage is really bad in the
Hemi, in the neighborhood of 12-15 on the highway. Is it really that
bad? I imagine the gobs of power more than make up for it.
I just put my 71 Olds Delta 88 with the 455.5 Rocket under the hood in my
pole-barn for the winter. I bought it when I was 17, best car I've ever
owned. I just have to keep my foot out of the 4-barrel. :c) Uses gas
like nobodies business.
--
Why is it that the people that complain the most about Jewish Lawyers
are the very same people that want to force you to follow laws set down
by Jewish Lawyers 3,500 years ago?
Jim Doemer 2004.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harry F. Leopold" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question About Cars |
05 Dec 2004 03:30:23 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 10:52:46 -0600, Andrealphus wrote
(in article <yFmrd.4958$u81.1944@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>):
towelie <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote:
TV's chibiabos wrote:
In article <Ruednfl6E7nZ-zDcRVn-gA@comcast.com>, JTEM
<gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
This is a tough one -- don't know if anyone can
answer -- but here it goes:
What's a reasonably priced alternative to an SUV?
Any suggestions?
Check out a moderately priced compact pickup, a Toyota Tacoma, Nissan
Frontier, etc. Extended cabs give plenty of seating plus you get lots
of cargo area. Add a sporty camper shell for the SUV look.
That wouldn't be much of an improvement over an SUV. Much less
interior space, and the same poor handling.
These trucks start at $13,000 brand new, and you can add various
packages to upgrade the interior, ride, body trim, etc. Mileage stays
in the 22-28mpg range for most of 'em.
With a 4-cylinder engine. From what the OP said, I doubt his friend
would be satisfied with a 4-banger.
Most SUVs are already built on pickup frames, so if you live in a
state where the VLF makes a distinction between a "car" and a
"commercial truck" (like California), you're not saving anything by
buying an SUV over a truck.
I love my Dodge Ram Hemi 2500 longbed to death. It's definitely NOT a
compact truck, and the mileage sucks big time, but I've owned nothing
but trucks (mostly compact) for the past 30 years and wouldn't drive
anything else.
I rented a 2005 Dodge 1500 with the 4.7 liter V8 engine, and the
mileage was very poor. I've heard the mileage is really bad in the
Hemi, in the neighborhood of 12-15 on the highway. Is it really that
bad? I imagine the gobs of power more than make up for it.
I just put my 71 Olds Delta 88 with the 455.5 Rocket under the hood in my
pole-barn for the winter. I bought it when I was 17, best car I've ever
owned. I just have to keep my foot out of the 4-barrel. :c) Uses gas
like nobodies business.
Oh that they will, I had the 1959 Olds 88 sedan with the (as I remember) 386
engine, LOTS of speed! But the brakes were only good for one hot stop until
they cooled down some. I bought it back in 1969, only big car I ever owned,
also the only one I ever owned with an automatic trans.
Then I got an MGA 1500, a 1957 coupe. Since then I have stuck with small
cars, much more fun and I don't have to start looking for a gas station right
after filling up. (My current car gets right about 40 MPG, has a 7 gallon
tank and 3 cylinders - Yes, just 3, confused the heck out of Diane's oldest
when he first checked out under the hood. ;-)
I still want to get another MGA coupe, though, that was a fun car.
--
Harry F. Leopold
aa #2076
AA/Vet #4
The Prints of Darkness
(remove gene to email)
³Damn! I never expected to see this place be armpit-deep in wombats. Kinda
cute as long as you don't move or breath. ;-)³
.
|
|
|
| User: "towelie" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question About Cars |
05 Dec 2004 04:14:34 AM |
|
|
TV's Harry F. Leopold wrote:
My current car gets right about 40 MPG, has a 7 gallon tank and 3
cylinders -
Yes, just 3, confused the heck out of Diane's oldest when he first checked
out under the hood.
Geo Metro? Daihaitsu Charade?
--
"Them white boys had me on crystal meth" - some crackhead in GTA:SA
aa #2133
ap #19
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harry F. Leopold" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question About Cars |
05 Dec 2004 04:33:52 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 04:14:34 -0600, towelie wrote
(in article <31g5c8F39kv21U1@individual.net>):
TV's Harry F. Leopold wrote:
My current car gets right about 40 MPG, has a 7 gallon tank and 3
cylinders -
Yes, just 3, confused the heck out of Diane's oldest when he first checked
out under the hood.
Geo Metro? Daihaitsu Charade?
A 1987 Chevy Sprint. An early Geo.
--
Harry F. Leopold
aa #2076
AA/Vet #4
The Prints of Darkness
(remove gene to email)
³Of course *you use an operating system hand woven on a loom at a co-op in
the Andean mountains I'm sure.³-Mark K. Bilbo
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question About Cars |
05 Dec 2004 11:20:56 AM |
|
|
towelie wrote:
Yes, just 3, confused the heck out of Diane's oldest when he first checked
out under the hood.
Geo Metro? Daihaitsu Charade?
I always get a kick out of how they named a car
"charade"...especially a car like that. How fitting!
--
Jim
Visit the Selectric Typewriter Museum!
http://www.selectric.org
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question About Cars |
01 Dec 2004 07:36:53 PM |
|
|
In our last episode <Ruednfl6E7nZ-zDcRVn-gA@comcast.com>, JTEM lept out of
the bushes shouting:
Not that I'm in the market (I'm not), but the roomie is really scratching
his head. In fact, he's on the verge of buying another Jeep.
Is he suicidal?
(I've seen those things roll and, once, less than a block away from me as
I was on the sidewalk)
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Being surprised at the fact that the universe
is fine tuned for life is akin to a puddle being
surprised at how well it fits its hole"
-- Douglas Adams
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question About Cars |
01 Dec 2004 11:16:58 PM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote
Is he suicidal?
(I've seen those things roll and, once, less than a block away
from me as I was on the sidewalk)
I guess it's a trade-off.
He's less likely to get into an accident with 4WD and ABS,
and the bigger size means he's going to win any smackdown
unless it's with another SUV.
Like I said, he was rear-ended by a Volvo, a car with a
better reputation for sturdiness than most any American
car. He got away with cosmetic damage, while the Volvo
owner was out shopping for a new bumper... hood... grill...
fender.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question About Cars |
03 Dec 2004 08:11:14 AM |
|
|
In our last episode <7Medndf7rqY3PjPcRVn-ig@comcast.com>, JTEM lept out of
the bushes shouting:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote
Is he suicidal?
(I've seen those things roll and, once, less than a block away from me
as I was on the sidewalk)
I guess it's a trade-off.
He's less likely to get into an accident with 4WD and ABS, and the bigger
size means he's going to win any smackdown unless it's with another SUV.
Like I said, he was rear-ended by a Volvo, a car with a better reputation
for sturdiness than most any American car. He got away with cosmetic
damage, while the Volvo owner was out shopping for a new bumper... hood...
grill... fender.
That's rather anecdotal. The overall record of SUVs is not good...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Being surprised at the fact that the universe
is fine tuned for life is akin to a puddle being
surprised at how well it fits its hole"
-- Douglas Adams
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carl Kaufmann" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question About Cars |
03 Dec 2004 09:34:53 AM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote
Is he suicidal?
(I've seen those things roll and, once, less than a block away
from me as I was on the sidewalk)
I guess it's a trade-off.
He's less likely to get into an accident with 4WD and ABS,
and the bigger size means he's going to win any smackdown
unless it's with another SUV.
Like I said, he was rear-ended by a Volvo, a car with a
better reputation for sturdiness than most any American
car. He got away with cosmetic damage, while the Volvo
owner was out shopping for a new bumper... hood... grill...
fender.
One thing that most people don't understand is that an auto that doesn't
fold up (on purpose) is _not_ safer than one that does. If the car
doesn't absorb the energy of impact, then the passengers do, and that is
a bad thing.
Carl
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question About Cars |
02 Dec 2004 12:04:41 AM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote
Is he suicidal?
(I've seen those things roll and, once, less than a block away
from me as I was on the sidewalk)
I guess it's a trade-off.
He's less likely to get into an accident with 4WD and ABS,
and the bigger size means he's going to win any smackdown
unless it's with another SUV.
Like I said, he was rear-ended by a Volvo, a car with a
better reputation for sturdiness than most any American
car. He got away with cosmetic damage, while the Volvo
owner was out shopping for a new bumper... hood... grill...
fender.
That has more to do with the nature of rearend collisions;
if both drivers are on the brakes, the fronts go down and
the rears go up, and the car in back will go under the rear
bumper of the car in front. With the mismatch of a suv and
a sedan, this is just exaggerated.
--
Jim
Visit the Selectric Typewriter Museum!
http://www.selectric.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question About Cars |
02 Dec 2004 02:06:48 AM |
|
|
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote
Like I said, he was rear-ended by a Volvo, a car with a
better reputation for sturdiness than most any American
car. He got away with cosmetic damage, while the Volvo
owner was out shopping for a new bumper... hood... grill...
fender.
That has more to do with the nature of rearend collisions;
if both drivers are on the brakes, the fronts go down and
the rears go up, and the car in back will go under the rear
bumper of the car in front. With the mismatch of a suv and
a sedan, this is just exaggerated.
The roomie was at a complete stop at the time.
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question About Cars |
02 Dec 2004 08:39:04 AM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote
Like I said, he was rear-ended by a Volvo, a car with a
better reputation for sturdiness than most any American
car. He got away with cosmetic damage, while the Volvo
owner was out shopping for a new bumper... hood... grill...
fender.
That has more to do with the nature of rearend collisions;
if both drivers are on the brakes, the fronts go down and
the rears go up, and the car in back will go under the rear
bumper of the car in front. With the mismatch of a suv and
a sedan, this is just exaggerated.
The roomie was at a complete stop at the time.
But the volvo wasn't...
--
Jim
Visit the Selectric Typewriter Museum!
http://www.selectric.org
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "towelie" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question About Cars |
01 Dec 2004 07:53:45 PM |
|
|
TV's Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
In our last episode <Ruednfl6E7nZ-zDcRVn-gA@comcast.com>, JTEM lept
out of the bushes shouting:
Not that I'm in the market (I'm not), but the roomie is really
scratching his head. In fact, he's on the verge of buying another
Jeep.
Is he suicidal?
(I've seen those things roll and, once, less than a block away from
me as I was on the sidewalk)
My dad had a 1986 Suzuki Samurai (small Jeep clone) and I got it on two
wheels on more than one occasion. Dangerous vehicle.
--
"Them white boys had me on crystal meth" - some crackhead in GTA:SA
aa #2133
ap #19
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
