SpudFiles

Cash, Shutup.

Quite simple quit arguing And the rest don't bait him on. This is ridiculous.
Please quit with the petty squabbling. If Cash so chooses to believe that nobody REALLY needs a SUV, fine by me.I just so happen to be the type that will not drive a car because I hate to,that is why I like trucks and SUV's.So let's keep the topic to a replacement vehicle.Not on how large our penises are.

goathunter wrote:Cash, Shutup.

Quite simple quit arguing And the rest don't bait him on. This is ridiculous.
Please quit with the petty squabbling. If Cash so chooses to believe that nobody REALLY needs a SUV, fine by me.I just so happen to be the type that will not drive a car because I hate to,that is why I like trucks and SUV's.So let's keep the topic to a replacement vehicle.Not on how large our penises are.

Well put.

Also, for me, having my truck is a good thing. Because if I were to get in a wreck, there's only one car that needs to be paid for. Theirs. Saves me and my family money. (Since both wrecks I've been in were "my fault")

Everybody needs to chill a little. Debates are freaking awesome until somebody spoils it by getting too mad and running off like a ninny-baby.

On some points I agree with Cash.

Cash68 wrote: Get a minivan. They are designed to carry PEOPLE and gear safely and efficiently. But of course, you laugh at this. Why is your manhood threatened by vehicle choice?

Hey, I'd be glad to get a minivan, if I needed one. Just like the trucks, if you don't need one, it's really a waste of money. Maybe when I have four kids I'll consider buying one.

Cash68 wrote: They go from being stupid and not understanding something to straight up violence, without ever attempting to realize that maybe they're wrong. I was talking to this one guy one time about why he shouldn't just 'drive' in the passing lane, and how that lane is for passing, and that when you aren't passing, you should move to the right, so other people can pass you, and he would simply not agree with me. When I asked him what he did when he was 'driving' in the passing lane and came up to a car going 10 under the speed limit, he said he'd get pissed off and flash his brights and stuff. Then I explained that by staying in the passing lane, he IS that person, and then he just started getting pissed off, starting calling me gay, when I asked him why he couldn't just admit that maybe he was wrong, he wanted to fight. Whatever.

Another point! Everybody doesn't get this... that the left lane is for passing! Almost every time I need to pass somebody on I-12 I have to wait for nearly a mile for the line of people, (from Mandeville ), only about three foot apart to get on by at 85. In the meantime, I'm stuck doin' 60 behind the Mexican crap-mo-bile that's about to drop a mattress on my head.

Now, here comes the part where I gotta disagree again.

Cash68 wrote: You'd be better off, where I live. The MPD is corrupt as hell. Check out some of milwaukee's finest right here:

http://milwaukee.indymedia.org/en/2005/07/203873.shtml

And sorry, I've never been 'in trouble' and needed to call the police. I can take care of myself. Every cop I know was a loser in high school, and only chose their job because they have a 'god complex' where they like to assert power over others.

That's because you've never met a cop on their off-time. Cops are PAID to assert power over others. When they go to work, their "Work-voice" just takes over. Most of the time, people who choose to be a cop to have power over others would be weeded out in the Academy, (at least for the State Police).

Cash68 wrote: >shrug< Have you WORKED in a factory before? Just wondering.

No, but I've worked in a supermarket before!

Cash68 wrote: So you're a poser. You don't tow, or haul, yet you want the macho image. Why?! Would you feel less manly driving a car? I suppose you think soccer moms trading in minivans for Hummer H2s is also a good idea. And.... not to be a jerk, but neither of those scores is very impressive.

No no no.... Me and my dad got the truck because it was nearly 600 dollars cheaper than most of the cars there were available. It was a good deal, too. Somebody just got out of college and didn't want the truck anymore. They sold it for under three-grand.

Also, I have put the truck to use. I don't tow boats or trailers or anything like that, but there have been multiple occasions where I need it to drive my four-wheeler to the Bogue Chitto. Also, it proved invaluable when cleaning out my closet. I don't know how I would get 7 mailing tubes, twenty UPS boxes, over 20 feet of scrap pipe, and multiple other assorted crap to the dump in a car.

Also, what did you make on the ACT? Both those scores are pretty good for the first time we took the test.

Cash68 wrote: Yes, but WHAT is there to like? Compared to the average car, they are slower, have poor brakes, poor handling, poor response, poor gas mileage, poor safety, poor sound deadening, and a poor ride. So that leaves.... what exactly?

I still have not experienced any of the problems you mention above. Of course, I have a smaller Ford Ranger, so that might be a blessing. I can easily get up to over 100 on the interstate, (if I actually tried... I've only sped up to 90 one night when nobody was around), and as long as the tires have good treads on the back and the air pressure is right, I have great handling. Most people don't know to put their best tires on the back of their truck. If you have bald tires back there... forget it. You make a curve over 25 and you're sliding. As for gas, it only costs a little more than my mom's Corolla to fill up, and I only have to fill up 3 days more frequently than her. I'm not getting broke by gas mileage at all. Safety? Don't know. I'm a pretty safe driver so I only have the one ditch incident to attribute to, and I was fine after that. Not even sore the next day. Sound deadening? I don't know, as I drive with my window down all the time, even when it's drizzling. When the window is down, though, all I get is your standard road noise. Can't hear the tires any, and bumps aren't loud at all. I drive a little road called Stafford road at 55, (the highly out-dated and dangerous speed limit), all the time and it's nothing.

Again, it might be because I've got a small Ranger, but that's my experience anyways.

EDIT: damn browser refreshed during posting. A mod can delete this tag if they want.

ammosmoke wrote:Poor brakes? So thats why they can stop a 5,000lb trailer! Oh!

Oh yeah, and it leaves good looks, and a V8 growl.

You lose. Braking performance on a truck is BAD.

goathunter wrote:Cash, Shutup.

Quite simple quit arguing And the rest don't bait him on. This is ridiculous.
Please quit with the petty squabbling. If Cash so chooses to believe that nobody REALLY needs a SUV, fine by me.I just so happen to be the type that will not drive a car because I hate to,that is why I like trucks and SUV's.So let's keep the topic to a replacement vehicle.Not on how large our penises are.

See? I argue logic, facts, and reason, and now I'm told to shutup. A somewhat violent response, no? Also, you don't read what I write. I have already explained I have no problem with people who own trucks and SUVs and actually USE THEM AS TRUCKS AND SUVS, I DO have a problem with people that use them as minivans/cars.

Modderxtrordanare wrote:Also, for me, having my truck is a good thing. Because if I were to get in a wreck, there's only one car that needs to be paid for. Theirs. Saves me and my family money. (Since both wrecks I've been in were "my fault")

If you actually haul things or offroad, you'd have a valid point. If you do neither, you're actually WRONG in your reasoning there. Think about the following points:

1. What is more likely to AVOID an accident in the first place? A vehicle with better braking, handling, and response? Or a vehicle with poor braking, poor handling, and poor response?

2. You are correct about trucks surviving accidents! However, this comes at a price! Like I have explained many times in this thread, trucks /suvs LACK CRUMPLE ZONES. This means that in a more serious accident, instead of hte truck destroying itself to reduce the energy transferred to the occupants, the energy gets transferred directly in the passenger compartment. I have a perfect example in my paper, available here:

http://chicane.myftp.org/SUVresearchpaper.pdf

I'll quote it for you:

"A close friend of mine drives a luxury SUV, and was rear-ended by a Pontiac grand am traveling about 10-15mph. The grand am was totaled, but the luxury SUV was barely damaged. However, all was not so well for the occupants. The woman driving the grand am was shaken up, but healthy, while my friend driving the SUV was not so lucky. The sharp jolt of energy during the impact gave him severe whiplash, and he’s still doing physical therapy to this day because of neck pains. Had he been
driving a car, things would probably have turned out differently: both vehicles would have absorbed the energy by crumpling, and both drivers would have been relatively unharmed"

Also, if you hit an immovable object, such as a tree, cement median divider, or rock, cars are MUCH MUCH safer.

"For example, if the driver of a 2002 Cadillac Escalade—one of the largest SUVs on the market—crashed into an unyielding surface at thirty-five miles an hour, he would have a 16% chance of sustaining a life-threatening head injury and a 20% chance of receiving a life- threatening chest injury.71 That same driver in a Ford Windstar—a large minivan with a similar seating capacity to the Escalade—would have only a 2% chance of a life-threatening head injury, and only a 4% chance of a life-threatening chest injury.72 Thus, the driver of the Escalade would be five to eight times more likely to die when hitting a fixed object at a
moderate speed than the driver of the minivan."

So again, while your truck might be cheaper to repair in an accident, ultimately, it puts your family more at risk. The deathrate for trucks/suvs is 3x higher than that of passenger cars, for all the reasons I mentioned. Personally, I'd rather have a totaled vehicle, and keep my loved ones safe. You, on the other hand, would rather risk the lives and well being of your family, because you'd like to save money when you get into an accident.

PS: It doesn't suprise me that both accidents you were in were your fault. It's hard to avoid an accident in a vehicle with craptastic braking and handling.

Maybe we don't care if its safer or not, maybe we don't care if its cheaper to get a minivan. The person driving the car makes the vastest difference in safety. As long as you can instill a certain amount of control over the vehicle, which at least the truck I have driven can supply, I am fine, and I am safe enough for my tastes. I've had it with this discussion, I'm not posting on it anymore.

If you don't care about saftey, performance, efficiency, braking, acceleration, or handling, then yes, trucks are a great choice. Rock on truck fans. Just stay in the slow lane and get out of my way, and please check your blindspots and use your turn signal before hitting me when changing lanes.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Cras nec placerat erat. Vivamus dapibus egestas nunc, at eleifend neque. Suspendisse potenti. Sed dictum lacus eu nisl pretium vehicula. Ut faucibus hendrerit nisi. Integer ultricies orci eu ultrices malesuada. Fusce id mauris risus. Suspendisse finibus ligula et nisl rutrum efficitur. Vestibulum posuere erat pellentesque ornare venenatis. Integer commodo fermentum tortor in pharetra. Proin scelerisque consectetur posuere. Vestibulum molestie augue ac nibh feugiat scelerisque. Sed aliquet a nunc in mattis.

If you don't care about saftey, performance, efficiency, braking, acceleration, or handling, then yes, trucks are a great choice. Rock on truck fans. Just stay in the slow lane and get out of my way, and please check your blindspots and use your turn signal before hitting me when changing lanes.

Ok, thats it, I am posting here one more time. Being in a truck has NOTHING to do with driving slow, nor being in the slow lane. ANY truck can drive the speed limit, as long as it is in decent condition. That lies with the driving style, not the vehicle. And, really, a good driver solves many of these problems you have described. The gov needs to invest in better driving programs, frankly, there are way too many people who just dont know how to drive properly. Stop being such a bastard.

SpudBlaster15 wrote:Huh? Modern trucks and SUVs DO have crumple zones. I don't know where you obtained that info.

Some do, MOST still don't. They have frame rails, which do NOT crumple like a car's unibody structure. They're also built stiffer and heavier, as towing/offroading requires the chassis to be overbuilt.

While it is true that trucks are more likely to cause accidents, this only means that cars are more likely to engage in collisions with trucks, and, should this occur, the truck occupants are much more likely to survive.

1. Wrong. A lot of accidents are single vehicle accidents, where a driver loses control and slides off the road.

2. So you're totally happy with killing other people in an accident? Even if it's your own stupid truck's fault, since it sucks at turning and stopping?

"The advantages are in terms of passive safety — when a collision occurs — and include the truck's weight and height. Most motorists recognize that a heavier vehicle fares better in a crash with a lighter one, all other things being equal (which they seldom are). A pickup's height relative to other vehicles also gives it an advantage in that it meets bumper-to-bumper with other trucks.

That height also increases the center of gravity, which equates to trucks/suvs being more likely to rollover. This is one of the causes of the 3x higher deathrate per 10,000 vehicles of trucks/suvs compared to cars.

In a collision with a lower car, the truck typically comes out on top — sometimes literally. So-called crash incompatibility means the truck can ride up over the car's floor pan, its most solid structure, bypassing the car's crumple zone and plowing into the occupant compartment. The best scenario for both vehicles is for their crumple zones to engage each other and absorb the crash energy as much as possible. Still, the car almost always loses. So overall, a pickup's two main safety advantages come at the expense of other vehicles."

Exactly. The pickup isn't a safe vehicle, because it doesn't crumple, and it likes to roll, thus, the ONLY scenario where it's actually safe is if it nails a CAR, and heavily injures/kills the occupants of the car. Why do you feel this is okay? What would you do if EVERYBODY drove trucks? The highway deathrate would certainly skyrocket, so that isn't a very good solution, is it?

"It is true that larger, heavier vehicles generally do a better job of protecting their occupants in crashes. There are two reasons for this: size and weight. Larger-sized vehicles, if they are well designed, can have longer crumple zones.

As in lincoln towncars, and other full size cars. Trucks, however, lack these crumplezones, which is exactly why the Escalade driver is 5-8x more likely to die than the minivan driver.

If you run into a bridge embankment, a long crumple zone means the passenger compartment decelerates less abruptly, so passengers are less likely to be hurt. If you are in crash between two cars, the crumple zone in your car reduces the deceleration experienced by the passengers of both cars. This is a good thing. Cars well engineered for safety help everyone.

Exactly. Car to car crash= safest possible crash. Truck/SUV to truck/SUV crash= the worst possible kind of crash, resulting in the highest chances of death.

But none of these vehicles are well engineered for safety. Not being cars, they are exempt from car safety requirements. They tend to have minimal crumple zones. Studies show that being hit by a light truck is signifcantly more likely to cause death than being hit by a car, even if the weights are equal. Any added safety that light trucks confer on their drivers is purely because they are heavier than other cars on the road. Being heavy doesn't help you much if you hit a bridge embankment, but it does help if you hit a lighter car. By the laws of physics, the lighter car will decelerate faster than the heavier car, so the occupants of the lighter car will likely suffer greater injuries."

Indeed, by this rational we should all drive ford excursions. Luckily, some people are intelligent enough to realize that having crappy brakes and handling= you're more likely to get into an accident in the first place. Me? I'd rather drive my souped up 1992 Subaru SVX with all wheel drive and insane handling and braking, and avoid accidents all together.

Also, would you mind posting the sources of the statistics quoted in your last post?

They're all cited in my research paper, available here:

http://chicane.myftp.org/SUVresearchpaper.pdf

You are a complete and totaly ignorant person in saying that a trucks braking system is inferior to that of an equal weight car such as a caddy. My 2003 dodge diesel can out stop the average car while pulling another car!!! It sports four wheel drilled and slotted 15 inch disc brakes, you will fin that most small passenger cars will have 10 inch or smaller drum brakes. You are, however correct about an average car being able to handle better than a stock pickup. A car is lower to the ground and can have a more absorbent suspention system because it does not need to carry over a ton of weight like a truck.

I only have one thing to say,Vehicals would never get in wrecks if people didnt crash them.
P.S. I have never gotten in a wreck driving my TRUCK and neither has my mother or father who also drive truck's or SUV's. If you have crashed you vehical then you are eithr a bad driver or in the wrong place at the wrong time with another bad driver. None of this has anything to do with the vehical, it makes very little difference.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Cras nec placerat erat. Vivamus dapibus egestas nunc, at eleifend neque. Suspendisse potenti. Sed dictum lacus eu nisl pretium vehicula. Ut faucibus hendrerit nisi. Integer ultricies orci eu ultrices malesuada. Fusce id mauris risus. Suspendisse finibus ligula et nisl rutrum efficitur. Vestibulum posuere erat pellentesque ornare venenatis. Integer commodo fermentum tortor in pharetra. Proin scelerisque consectetur posuere. Vestibulum molestie augue ac nibh feugiat scelerisque. Sed aliquet a nunc in mattis.

turbohacker wrote:You are a complete and totaly ignorant person in saying that a trucks braking system is inferior to that of an equal weight car such as a caddy. My 2003 dodge diesel can out stop the average car while pulling another car!!! It sports four wheel drilled and slotted 15 inch disc brakes, you will fin that most small passenger cars will have 10 inch or smaller drum brakes. You are, however correct about an average car being able to handle better than a stock pickup. A car is lower to the ground and can have a more absorbent suspention system because it does not need to carry over a ton of weight like a truck.

No shit. The average car doesn't WEIGH as much as your truck either, so it doesn't NEED 15" rotors on all four corners to stop well. That's like saying a "camaro" is going to be faster than a Lotus Elise, because it has a bigger engine. WRONG. It's about POWER TO WEIGHT, and braking abilities work the same way.

PS: Cross drilled and slotted rotors actually reduce the surface area of your rotor. Rotors were originally drilled to help outgas the pads when they still used abestos in brake pads, but now they're just for looks.

PPS: Your ram's braking abilities really are not very good.

http://www.motortrend.com/oftheyear/tru ... price.html

60-0 in 159-160ft.

http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/Spec_ ... &trimid=-1

Compared to a cadillac CTS's 60-0 of only 134 ft. That's a TWENTY SIX FOOT DIFFERENCE.

SpudBlaster15 wrote:

cash68 wrote:Wait. Crap. It was nothing but mindless ramblings by a know it all who fails to back up anything he says with real information. Sweet.

Mindless; only if the reader is. Ramblings; sure, I do that often. Lacking real information; I see lots of information. Opinion based information, that is. Just like yours. You believe vehicles are at fault of most accidents, fine. I don't, and none of your 'evidence' can prove that I am wrong.

I never said they're AT FAULT, I said they contribute. If you can't understand that vehicle performance can contribute to an accident, I don't know what to say other than you're a complete fucking moron.

And how is STASTICAL INFORMATION FROM THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AND SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 'opinion' based information?

You are the one spreading lies, ignorance and bullshit around here pal. You've also said you wouldn't be posting in this thread anymore, yet you CONTINUE to break your own word. Do me a favor, and piss off. Go ride your bicycle and pretend you know what you're talking about somewhere else.