Definition of a SUV

Talk about a sensitivity issue. I didn't see a huge groundswell of
public opinion when the KIA first came on the scene. To me KIA means,
and always will mean, Killed In Action. Didn't Chevrolet have a image
problem with the Nova in Spanish speaking countries?

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 17:02:34 GMT, "k. ote" <kote.DeleteThis@example.com> wrote:

>jabario@backpacker.com wrote:
>
>> It isn't wise to name a car after a part of a cesspool of a city that
>> is filled with deviants. Most of America has Christian values and
>> finds that behavior an abomination. The museums are really the only
>> worthwhile thing in NYC. A car name should be neutral or express a
>> positive connotation.
>
>That particular cross-sextion of America just needs another demon since the
>cold war ended; quite frankly, they and their narrow-minded foolishness are
>precisely what give tyrants a reason and support to destroy civilisations.
>May God have mercy on their hate-filled souls.
 >> Stay informed about: Definition of a SUV 

Ray wrote:

> Talk about a sensitivity issue. I didn't see a huge groundswell of
> public opinion when the KIA first came on the scene. To me KIA means,
> and always will mean, Killed In Action. Didn't Chevrolet have a image
> problem with the Nova in Spanish speaking countries?

Awesome.. Killed In Action. That's terrific.
 >> Stay informed about: Definition of a SUV 

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 17:20:58 GMT, "k. ote" <kote.RemoveThis@example.com> wrote:

>nothermark wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 05:42:22 GMT, Moon Guy <someone.RemoveThis@hell.low> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <Xns969AB7DCFCA7Akc1ihmaccom.RemoveThis@216.168.3.30>,
>>> Larry Weil <kc1ih.RemoveThis@mac.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> S.U.V. = Stupid Useless Vehicle
>>>
>>>Stupid Unecessary Vehicle is more like it for most.
>>
>> What would you buy if you had two or three teenagers to haul around?
>
>How about a minivan with a nice low centre of gravity? Or a sedan. I suppose
>it depends on where I live. Am I out in the bush somewhere, or in the
>middle of suburban, sameness hell?

FWIW - check the milage ratings. Comparable size vans and SUV's get
about the same milage. From what I can tell the real issues are
weight and frontal cross section area.

Note: my only observation is that SUV's are really targeted as
political BS. Reallity is that if the folks driving them need the
capacity it doesn't matter whether they are driving an SUV or a full
size sedan or a minivan. If they tow much more than a ton they can
only pick a larger SUV of truck as the minivan's and cars don't have
high towing capacity anymore.
 >> Stay informed about: Definition of a SUV 

Yes, Nova (it does not go), Pinto (Spanish slang term), and even today the
new Buick LaCrosse (Allure in Canada due to French Canadian meaning of
LaCrosse). Seems very little is done to ensure the meaning of a name until
it is sprung on the public. I believe that is why so many Japanese cars were
only numbers here at first although in Japan almost all have names, for
example in the U.S. the 240Z was the Fairlady Z in Japan.

Blair

"Ray" <brbergen.TakeThisOut@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:nvqke15a8v8tl6lf9jm225pj4pq53tkuek@4ax.com...
> Talk about a sensitivity issue. I didn't see a huge groundswell of
> public opinion when the KIA first came on the scene. To me KIA means,
> and always will mean, Killed In Action. Didn't Chevrolet have a image
> problem with the Nova in Spanish speaking countries?
>
> On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 17:02:34 GMT, "k. ote" <kote.TakeThisOut@example.com> wrote:
>
>>jabario@backpacker.com wrote:
>>
>>> It isn't wise to name a car after a part of a cesspool of a city that
>>> is filled with deviants. Most of America has Christian values and
>>> finds that behavior an abomination. The museums are really the only
>>> worthwhile thing in NYC. A car name should be neutral or express a
>>> positive connotation.
>>
>>That particular cross-sextion of America just needs another demon since
>>the
>>cold war ended; quite frankly, they and their narrow-minded foolishness
>>are
>>precisely what give tyrants a reason and support to destroy civilisations.
>>May God have mercy on their hate-filled souls.
>
 >> Stay informed about: Definition of a SUV 

Minivans are incredibly practical but are not so good in the
masculinity affirming department. They are also no better than in a
sedan in poor weather. Yes they do have AWD minivans but what fool
would trust a chrysler with complicated technology. There are also few
regular wagons out there. The Magnum had promise until the designers
sloped the rear hatch area negating the ability to really haul stuff.
Most people would be better served with a wagon or minivan than with an
suv. But appearances are important even with $2+ gallon gas. Just look
at the smoker trash that pay $60 for a carton .
 >> Stay informed about: Definition of a SUV 

k. ote wrote:
> nothermark wrote:
>
>
>>On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 05:42:22 GMT, Moon Guy <someone RemoveThis @hell.low> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <Xns969AB7DCFCA7Akc1ihmaccom RemoveThis @216.168.3.30>,
>>>Larry Weil <kc1ih RemoveThis @mac.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>S.U.V. = Stupid Useless Vehicle
>>>
>>>Stupid Unecessary Vehicle is more like it for most.
>>
>>What would you buy if you had two or three teenagers to haul around?
>
>
> How about a minivan with a nice low centre of gravity? Or a sedan. I suppose
> it depends on where I live. Am I out in the bush somewhere, or in the
> middle of suburban, sameness hell?
>


In March I rented a Ford Freestar for a week, while car shopping. (I
ended up buying my first Subaru.) I don't like big vehicles, so I
expected to dislike the Ford. I tried, but I couldn't. I really liked
that minivan. Handling was awesome. Comfort was great. One of my
daughters pleaded with me to buy a minivan, she loved it so much. I
couldn't believe how much I liked it, considering how bigoted I am.

This past weekend, I rented a Kia Sedona (minivan). Ick. Engine and
transmission were good. Interior was good. Overal fit and finish were
flawless. But handling was awful, as was steering. Nice try, Kia. You'll
get it right eventually. I notice Hyundai is getting very good reviews
lately.

Tom
 >> Stay informed about: Definition of a SUV 

nothermark wrote:

> FWIW - check the milage ratings. Comparable size vans and SUV's get
> about the same milage. From what I can tell the real issues are
> weight and frontal cross section area.
>
> Note: my only observation is that SUV's are really targeted as
> political BS. Reallity is that if the folks driving them need the
> capacity it doesn't matter whether they are driving an SUV or a full
> size sedan or a minivan. If they tow much more than a ton they can
> only pick a larger SUV of truck as the minivan's and cars don't have
> high towing capacity anymore.


I agree, but minivans generally have more interior space. So remind me
what the advantage of an SUV are, over a minivan.

Tom
 >> Stay informed about: Definition of a SUV 

No, a man should drive a manly vehicle
 >> Stay informed about: Definition of a SUV 

On 1 Aug 2005 10:15:55 -0700, jabario.DeleteThis@backpacker.com wrote:

>Minivans are incredibly practical but are not so good in the
>masculinity affirming department.

You have issues with your sexuality, don't you?
 >> Stay informed about: Definition of a SUV 

A REAL man would drive whatever he wants.

Carl


jabario.DeleteThis@backpacker.com wrote:
> No, a man should drive a manly vehicle
>

--
to reply, change ( .not) to ( .net)
 >> Stay informed about: Definition of a SUV 

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 12:22:20 -0400, Tom Reingold
<tlr.usenet.0525 RemoveThis @spambob.net> wrote:

>nothermark wrote:
>
>> FWIW - check the milage ratings. Comparable size vans and SUV's get
>> about the same milage. From what I can tell the real issues are
>> weight and frontal cross section area.
>>
>> Note: my only observation is that SUV's are really targeted as
>> political BS. Reallity is that if the folks driving them need the
>> capacity it doesn't matter whether they are driving an SUV or a full
>> size sedan or a minivan. If they tow much more than a ton they can
>> only pick a larger SUV of truck as the minivan's and cars don't have
>> high towing capacity anymore.
>
>
>I agree, but minivans generally have more interior space. So remind me
>what the advantage of an SUV are, over a minivan.
>
>Tom

The only minivan that will tow a significant load is the Chevy/GMC as
it still has a frame and rear drive. The rest are oversized sedans.
With Chrysler the quote I often hear is "after 20 years you'd think
they could make a transmission that lasted more than 70K miles". Then
there is ground clearance and 4wd. Not everyone needs All those
features all the time but most folks who buy SUV's think they need
some of them some of the time. If they didn't they would buy
something else, like a luxury sedan.

A thought. Folks who buy big vehicles aren't that bothered by gas
milage. They buy the vehicle because they think they need the utility
some of the time. Driving it to work alone is not why they own the
vehicle. It's just more cost effective to use a gallon instead of a
half gallon to get to work and not buy the second car. Assuming one
can garage the second car. Not all folks can. If they don't need the
load capacity they can get the rest with a small SUV like the Honda
CRV at quite reasonable milage.
 >> Stay informed about: Definition of a SUV 

nothermark wrote:

> The only minivan that will tow a significant load is the Chevy/GMC as
> it still has a frame and rear drive. The rest are oversized sedans.
> With Chrysler the quote I often hear is "after 20 years you'd think
> they could make a transmission that lasted more than 70K miles". Then
> there is ground clearance and 4wd. Not everyone needs All those
> features all the time but most folks who buy SUV's think they need
> some of them some of the time. If they didn't they would buy
> something else, like a luxury sedan.
>
> A thought. Folks who buy big vehicles aren't that bothered by gas
> milage. They buy the vehicle because they think they need the utility
> some of the time. Driving it to work alone is not why they own the
> vehicle. It's just more cost effective to use a gallon instead of a
> half gallon to get to work and not buy the second car. Assuming one
> can garage the second car. Not all folks can. If they don't need the
> load capacity they can get the rest with a small SUV like the Honda
> CRV at quite reasonable milage.


Yes, it probably goes something like that, often. I think it's bad math,
though. People want to own stuff because they might use it. I saved
money by buying my Subaru, so I can rent a minivan when I need to. I can
also rent an SUV but I've never felt the need to.

Tom
 >> Stay informed about: Definition of a SUV 

jabario.TakeThisOut@backpacker.com wrote:
> No, a man should drive a manly vehicle
>

That sounds like an argument for homosexuality. I say opposites attract,
which is why I enjoy my elegant and understated Subaru.

Tom
 >> Stay informed about: Definition of a SUV