Evil Gas Guzzeling SUV's save the day!

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Thoran: Quote: Originally posted by John D Harris: FWD is great harder to lose it, but if you do lose it, harder to recover. Wet road, curve, 110+mph, most perfect slide around a curve you have ever seen, turned the wheels into the slide didn't do squat, under 100mph on the straightaway now still looking out the passenger side window, bright idea to give it gas to pull the back end back inline, instantaneous 360's, sliding and spining, absolut thing of beauty, until it bounced off the guard rails.

In my experience 4WD is worse than FWD on ice... of course AWD (with a good awd system) is the best. The vast majority of FWD cars (or all cars for that matter) are set up to push like crazy (understeer), and this makes it difficult to actually get the rear coming around on you as you describe (not that it can't be done). The majority of FWD off road excursions happen becase the driver feels the car sliding, panics, hits the brakes and slides straight off the road. [/QUOTE]Would that it was panic , but the truth is it was to many adult beverages, my mind was too fogged to panic.

Originally posted by Azred: Why do some people focus on what someone drives instead of what kind of person is doing the driving? Motor vehicles are simply tools. Some people use them for real work while others use them simply to show off how much money they spent on a new vehicle.

LOL SOunds like my Gun argument [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Nachtrafe]

Originally posted by MagiK: Quote: Originally posted by Azred: Why do some people focus on what someone drives instead of what kind of person is doing the driving? Motor vehicles are simply tools. Some people use them for real work while others use them simply to show off how much money they spent on a new vehicle.

LOL SOunds like my Gun argument [img]smile.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]ROTFLM(agik's)AO!!!

Careful MagikMan...you could end up hijacking your own thread. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Erm...and, actually *ON* topic. I happen to like SUV's. Sure, there are a lot of morons who have them and never use them for their intended purpose, but, simply saying 'lets get rid of all SUV's because *SOME* people mis-use them' is simple-minded and ignores the very real usefulness of said SUV's. As seen in the article Magik posted, they *CAN* have a positive effect. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[HolyWarrior]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: I'm all for promoting business, but it is not the only consideration. If we extend your rationale ad infinitum then drugs and kiddie porn should be okay because there would be jobs created in the newly-arisen industries.

That is the dumbest post I have ever seen in this forum.

[Cloudbringer]

Originally posted by HolyWarrior: Quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: I'm all for promoting business, but it is not the only consideration. If we extend your rationale ad infinitum then drugs and kiddie porn should be okay because there would be jobs created in the newly-arisen industries.

That is the dumbest post I have ever seen in this forum.[/QUOTE]And your comment was unnecessarily rude. If you can't discuss the issue without insults to the other people in the thread, don't hit the reply button.

[Thoran]

Originally posted by HolyWarrior: Quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: I'm all for promoting business, but it is not the only consideration. If we extend your rationale ad infinitum then drugs and kiddie porn should be okay because there would be jobs created in the newly-arisen industries.

That is the dumbest post I have ever seen in this forum.[/QUOTE]That post was logically exactly correct... an infinitely business centric view of the world would result in businesses offering anything they could conceivably make a buck on. I think it'd be impossible to argue that money can't be made on drugs, and child pornogrophy introduced a moral component that makes the point that businesses aren't about making moral decisions... they're about making MONEY.

[Thoran]

Originally posted by Sir Krustin: Well, we'll have to agree to disagree then because the comparison you just made is false. Sure tha Cadillac carries 1248lbs vs. 1200lbs, but total gross weight is 1000 lbs less in the cadillac than the lincoln. We are also looking at whats basically two 1/2 ton vehicles - if you look at true load carrying vehicles, such as the 3/4 and 1-ton vehicles (eg, the GM 2500HD or Ford 250HD) they are, without exception, leaf spring vehicles. Even the Toyota (jap engineering) heavy trucks are all leaf springs.

Base curb weight, lb 5752 5700
Payload capacity, lb 1248 1200
GVWR, lb 7000 6800
GCWR, lb 14,000 15,000
Towing capacity, lb 8000 8700

the GVWR is 200 lbs to the Caddy advantage... although niether of the numbers add up (GCWR = GVWR for Truck + GVWR for Trailer), most of the Fords GCWR advantage is in towing capacity... which isn't a factor in calculating spring rating (well... it is a factor... but tongue load is just one more component of payload capacity, so it's buried in the above numbers.) While the Ford can PULL more than the Caddy, it can't carry more weight, which is the function of the springs. Pulling has more to do with engine, transmission, driveline, overall suspension design, and brakes... payload capacity is a factor, but not a primary factor. If you're talking about a Fifth wheel setup then it's different, but for a standard pull-behind tongue load should always be kept to a small value, so I don't think load capacity is usually a limiting factor.

I'll concede that once you get big enough coil springs simply become to large to be useable, although I'd guess that the majority of those applications tend to go air (like semi tractors and trailors). However I don't agree that you can extrapolate such limitations down into the <7000lb GVW category of light trucks, where coil based solutions exist and perform well. But then again... I too am always happy to agree to disagree.