The pollution of a car depends on two group of factors : - the car itself
- the motor itself
For the car :
- the weight (especially for accelerations, and for climbing : not important for constant speed with no slope)
- the sCX (CX multipied by the frontal surface)
- the Resistance of the tires, wich is the surface in contact multiplied by the resistance of the material
- the resistance of all the transmission system and the wheels
For the motor :
- the inner friction of the motor
- the efficiently of the combustion
These two parameters vary with the rpm and also with the charge.
This show that a small aerodynamic car with a modern small motor, heat less fuel, than a giant cube car with a monster big low efficiency motor.
This is quite an evidence.
Anyway, if i want a huge car for me and my family it's my right. I will note for example that the Touareg with the R5 tdi, do not eat more fuel than the average V6 gazoline US car.
For me what "heat" a car is very important, because the price of the fuel is very important in Europe and is a real issue (one liter in france equal the price of one gallon in US).
Sorry Powerdoc, but I'm just trying to envision a scenario where something like the H2 or Ford Expedition is "right for your family", but a slightly smaller vehicle like the Explorer or Xterra isn't. They basically seat the same number of people, allow for similar amounts of rear cargo and have the same "off road" capabilities.
The reality is, vehicles like the H2, Navigator, Sequoia, Expedition, et al, are simply "bigger" but carry no extra utility. They're show-off vehicles, period. If you REALLY need that cargo space for your 6 kids, you own a Suburban, not one of the afore-mentioned SUVanity products.
There's just no excuse short of having an inferiority complex or just wanting to have the biggest vehicle on the block.
Sorry Powerdoc, but I'm just trying to envision a scenario where something like the H2 or Ford Expedition is "right for your family", but a slightly smaller vehicle like the Explorer or Xterra isn't. They basically seat the same number of people, allow for similar amounts of rear cargo and have the same "off road" capabilities.
The reality is, vehicles like the H2, Navigator, Sequoia, Expedition, et al, are simply "bigger" but carry no extra utility. They're show-off vehicles, period. If you REALLY need that cargo space for your 6 kids, you own a Suburban, not one of the afore-mentioned SUVanity products.
There's just no excuse short of having an inferiority complex or just wanting to have the biggest vehicle on the block.
I did not consider buying in the future (let's say late 2006) any of these cars, and especially an H2. This car is a real beast for off road, but a disaster for my wallet (both in term of money to buy it, and for the appetite of the motor). I consider to replace two of my cars : my Coupe 406 and The espace ( a sort of Chrysler Voyager but a little smaller) for a vehicle like the Touareg, or like the XC 90 from volvo. Because my vanity found they have a good looking, both inside and outside, are confartables on the road, and can go offroad if i want (more the touareg, than the volvo). My vanity is not happy with car like the Voyager and consorts. Both of this car are selled in europe with diesel, that do not eat much fuel : 9 liters on highway per 100 km, and 12 liters on town. I do not consider that it's excessive at all, and let's say much less than any normal V8 or even V6 cars.
I will add that i have not an inferiority complex, especially for my penis, not because he is that big, but because i have not the habit to show it in public. I just want to have funs with my car; Cars are more than something that bring me to point A to point B, it's a pleasure to drive good cars.
Why would we do that? It's all a secret plan to deplete their supply before ours? No, one of the main reasons is that special interest environmental groups have seen to it that WE CAN'T DRILL OR EXPLORE HERE. Hmmm.
Again...I want pollution numbers.
BTW, I don't hear you ripping up construction workers for driving Dodge Rams.
And it's our choice. Some of us don't believe that the Earth is quite that fragile. ONE MORE TIME: Show me the emissions numbers on SUVS
Yeah, yeah, yeah and there are more trees now than in colonial times, Saddam had WOMD, and Dubbya is a nice man who just wants to help us. You know I like your way of thinking. Your " facts ".
The reality is, vehicles like the H2, Navigator, Sequoia, Expedition, et al, are simply "bigger" but carry no extra utility. They're show-off vehicles, period. If you REALLY need that cargo space for your 6 kids, you own a Suburban, not one of the afore-mentioned SUVanity products.
There's just no excuse short of having an inferiority complex or just wanting to have the biggest vehicle on the block.
There is of course no reason for the existence of Ferrari, Mercedes-Benz, Lexus, Jaguar, and any sports/luxury car on the road. The luxury features creates no extra utility. Everyone should be driving Chevy Aveos or Dodge Caravans.
Here's a scenario. Person A drives 40 miles a week in their Ford Excursion. Person B dirves 200 miles a week in their Toyota Echo. Who pollutes more? Personally I like small cars, but if someone wants to drive a tank around its their choice.
The poster who said that Detroit produces SUVs because there's demand for them had it right. If everyone was buy hybrids or very fuel efficient cars the automakers would concentrate on them. However, sales demand is for SUVs. Why would a business stop producing a product that sells well and has high demand to start producing a car that doesn't have much demand? Doesn't make sense to me.
Here's a scenario. Person A drives 40 miles a week in their Ford Excursion. Person B dirves 200 miles a week in their Toyota Echo. Who pollutes more? Personally I like small cars, but if someone wants to drive a tank around its their choice.
The poster who said that Detroit produces SUVs because there's demand for them had it right. If everyone was buy hybrids or very fuel efficient cars the automakers would concentrate on them. However, sales demand is for SUVs. Why would a business stop producing a product that sells well and has high demand to start producing a car that doesn't have much demand? Doesn't make sense to me.
The demand is driven by advertising. If Detroit starts advertising Hyrdogen fuel cell vehicles (or - God forbid - moderately smaller SUVs), guess what the consumers will demand? Unfortunately, Detroit has no plans to start advertising alternative vehicle styles or engine types because that would require them to retool their factories / take some responsibility.
I agree, btw, that most luxury sports cars are purchased by the same type of ego-maniac that most (not all, most) SUVs are purchased by.
I'm not trying to say there should only be one type of vehicle on the road, I'm saying there is no need to go to the unbelievably excessive levels of something like the Expedition or Sequoia or Navigator. Just MO.
I don't understand the conspiracy theories here regarding teh car companies. GM has been showcasing a hydrogen fuel cell car for a while. They are making a huge bet on it and believe it will revolutionize the industry.
They have also used it to demonstrate that they can use the same platform for multiple vehicles to save money, etc.
Also, and I know I have mentioned this before, the reason everyone who I know wants or drives an SUV isn't to fulfill some strange obsession, it is to hold all the car seats they have to carry around for their children.
In California the law is 6 years old or 60 lbs. Two car seats make taking 5 people in a passenger car impossible. If you have three young children, they simply won't fit in a regular passenger car. Also there are states in which the car seat laws now extend up to 8 years old.
The second reason I see people owning SUV's is because they own some toy that requires towing. Passenger cars are nice but they really can't tow a large boat, camping trailer, or things of that nature well.
My wife and I own an SUV (Jeep Cherokee) and a passenger car. (Honda Accord) When we go to Lake Havasu (as we just got back from) and tow the boat, we have to take the Jeep. There is no way the Honda would tow a 3,000 lb+ boat.
We have a Toyota Matrix that gets over 35 miles to the gallon, has tons of cargo space, has a sporty engine and very cool look, and has very good emissions. And from the inside, I can't see how an SUV is 'more capacious'. An SUV is just a poor excuse to feel like Godzilla.
the reason everyone who I know wants or drives an SUV isn't to fulfill some strange obsession, it is to hold all the car seats they have to carry around for their children.
Mmm. Not really. Not in my neck of the woods. In my neck of the woods, most people have 2 maybe 3 kids. And I'm sorry to be a ball buster but giant SUVs are NOT the only vehicles capable of holding that many car seats. Not by a long shot.
First you have the more moderate sized SUVs like the ones you're talking about:
Explorer
Cherokee
Liberty
Xterra
Etc
Then you have the goofy hybrid looking SUVs
RAV4
Turano
The Lexis thing
The Acura thing
etc
Then you have the wagons
Volvo
Subaru
Volkswagen
Honda (?)
Then you have standard mid-sized cars with large back seats
(take your pick, there are probably over a dozen)
My main point is, people do NOT buy mammoth SUVs because it's the only viable solution for baby seats and diaper bags. Sorry but they just aren't. Not even close.
Now, if you're TOWING a boat. OK. I get it. No big deal. If you have to tow a boat, a couple of jet skis, or some other 1500lb+ object then it is somewhat more reasonable that you want a big SUV to do it.
There are still smaller, more efficient vehicles that can do small towing jobs without trouble
Outback
Forrester
etc
but I can't say someone is "crazy" for buying a huge SUV as an alternative, should they be towing things on a frequent basis. Same deal with those huge shiny trucks I see tooling around with chrome wheels and fancy detail work. Dollars to doughnuts most of them never see an ounce of mud or tow a boat.
People buy the biggest, baddest looking thing out there because they want to be perceived as powerful, wealthy, big, whatever. Truth hurts.
We have a Toyota Matrix that gets over 35 miles to the gallon, has tons of cargo space, has a sporty engine and very cool look, and has very good emissions. And from the inside, I can't see how an SUV is 'more capacious'. An SUV is just a poor excuse to feel like Godzilla.
I can't find the spec for cubic feet of cargo space for that Matrix but it looks to be about 2/3's the size of my 1994 Cherokee.
Edit: Found them Matrix: 53 cu. ft. of cargo space. Cherokee (not even the largest SUV) 69 cu. ft.
Quote:
Originally posted by Moogs
Mmm. Not really. Not in my neck of the woods. In my neck of the woods, most people have 2 maybe 3 kids. And I'm sorry to be a ball buster but giant SUVs are NOT the only vehicles capable of holding that many car seats. Not by a long shot.
I didn't say anything about giant SUV's being better than mid-size SUV's with car seats. I mentioned that I have a Cherokee (definately mid-size) and that many people want room for car seats and have to buy a bigger vehicle. If they have any sort of towing needs it just raises the justification more. Likewise in numerous "discussions" with SDW, I have argued that minivans are just as nice as SUV's. However they do fall short in the towing area again.
Quote:
My main point is, people do NOT buy mammoth SUVs because it's the only viable solution for baby seats and diaper bags. Sorry but they just aren't. Not even close.
I know they aren't the only option but when you look at large passenger vans, minivans with more powerful engines or even larger sedans, much of the "improved" fuel mileage also disappears. Our Accord gets like 30 mpg which is very nice on the wallet. However it can't haul anything back from Home Depot, I can't toss a door on the roof rack, etc. I can't tow ANYTHING with it.
The other issue is that vehicles are increasingly expensive financial propositions for people with the average loan term being five years. I think people would rather buy too much than grow out of a vehicle and have to head back to the dealer to be screwed over again. So maybe they don't the Explorer with the V8 and the third seat. However since it is taking them 5 years to pay who knows if they won't have a boat, quads, travel trailer, more kids, cousins along by then?
Quote:
but I can't say someone is "crazy" for buying a huge SUV as an alternative, should they be towing things on a frequent basis. Same deal with those huge shiny trucks I see tooling around with chrome wheels and fancy detail work. Dollars to doughnuts most of them never see an ounce of mud or tow a boat.
This could be true but since people have to own their vehicles for so long and have them do so much, I guess they likely want the option available rather than being stuck without.
The huge 1 ton clubcab trucks you are talking about are a bit ridiculous. Yet I see people towing huge $30,000 boats to the river with them, often at about 80 mph.
I could be off because I live in a more rural area now. However I couldn't imagine driving being enjoyable in the city in some Excursion or thing of that nature anyway. When I am down in Long Beach/Orange County/etc. by Cherokee is able to flip a u turn on a two lane street 9 out of 10 times. Driving something bigger and with a huge turn radius would just be unenjoyable.
Is there anything wrong about liking an h2? So im not thrilled about its gas consumption, but i really like the design. Reminds me of a tonka truck, and in white it looks like something a stormtrooper would drive. But do i have a small penis, just because i like the design of a car?
Not only can you judge people's dick size by the size of their car, you can also tell that if your hispanic you must have jumped the border, or if your black you must shoot people. Amazing how sterotypes are so right?!
Also, and I know I have mentioned this before, the reason everyone who I know wants or drives an SUV isn't to fulfill some strange obsession, it is to hold all the car seats they have to carry around for their children.
what did people do before SUVs? station wagons what a concept!
pick-ups should be banned too unless they actually use them in their lineof work
what did people do before SUVs? station wagons what a concept!
pick-ups should be banned too unless they actually use them in their lineof work
Yes but those station wagons didn't require the use of car seats. Plus every station wagon my family ever owned while I was growing up had a V-8. How is that saving on gas?
Not only did the not require carseats when I was growing up, they didn't even require a seat. Most families I knew had a car and a pickup. The kids would just ride around in the back of the pickup with no seatbelts and no seats.
In fact, speaking of cargo room, if we were carrying around furniture or things of that nature, not only did you have ride in the back with it, you were often used to hold it down or keep it from damage. "Nick, dammit, don't you let that coffee table slid into that new 8 foot long stereo and scratch it."
Ah yes, ahem, the "good old days," when chain smoking moms were driving station wagons with their children crawling between the seats, and babies laying on the seats.
Not only can you judge people's dick size by the size of their car, you can also tell that if your hispanic you must have jumped the border, or if your black you must shoot people. Amazing how sterotypes are so right?!
Please, unless you have something to add to the auto-specific conversation, stfu. Don't twist my words into something they're not. Do you really think I believe everyone with an SUV has a small dick, or maybe, I am trying to get the message across that it's an insecurity / best-the-neighbors / ego-trip kind of thing?
I.E: most people who drive them have no practical need for them beyond getting themselves from point A to point B. Yah there's really no difference in the "stereotype" I used and the two you mentioned (Blacks and Hispanics). I must be a bigot....
Comments
- the motor itself
For the car :
- the weight (especially for accelerations, and for climbing : not important for constant speed with no slope)
- the sCX (CX multipied by the frontal surface)
- the Resistance of the tires, wich is the surface in contact multiplied by the resistance of the material
- the resistance of all the transmission system and the wheels
For the motor :
- the inner friction of the motor
- the efficiently of the combustion
These two parameters vary with the rpm and also with the charge.
This show that a small aerodynamic car with a modern small motor, heat less fuel, than a giant cube car with a monster big low efficiency motor.
This is quite an evidence.
Anyway, if i want a huge car for me and my family it's my right. I will note for example that the Touareg with the R5 tdi, do not eat more fuel than the average V6 gazoline US car.
For me what "heat" a car is very important, because the price of the fuel is very important in Europe and is a real issue (one liter in france equal the price of one gallon in US).
The reality is, vehicles like the H2, Navigator, Sequoia, Expedition, et al, are simply "bigger" but carry no extra utility. They're show-off vehicles, period. If you REALLY need that cargo space for your 6 kids, you own a Suburban, not one of the afore-mentioned SUVanity products.
There's just no excuse short of having an inferiority complex or just wanting to have the biggest vehicle on the block.
Originally posted by Moogs
Sorry Powerdoc, but I'm just trying to envision a scenario where something like the H2 or Ford Expedition is "right for your family", but a slightly smaller vehicle like the Explorer or Xterra isn't. They basically seat the same number of people, allow for similar amounts of rear cargo and have the same "off road" capabilities.
The reality is, vehicles like the H2, Navigator, Sequoia, Expedition, et al, are simply "bigger" but carry no extra utility. They're show-off vehicles, period. If you REALLY need that cargo space for your 6 kids, you own a Suburban, not one of the afore-mentioned SUVanity products.
There's just no excuse short of having an inferiority complex or just wanting to have the biggest vehicle on the block.
I did not consider buying in the future (let's say late 2006) any of these cars, and especially an H2. This car is a real beast for off road, but a disaster for my wallet (both in term of money to buy it, and for the appetite of the motor). I consider to replace two of my cars : my Coupe 406 and The espace ( a sort of Chrysler Voyager but a little smaller) for a vehicle like the Touareg, or like the XC 90 from volvo. Because my vanity found they have a good looking, both inside and outside, are confartables on the road, and can go offroad if i want (more the touareg, than the volvo). My vanity is not happy with car like the Voyager and consorts. Both of this car are selled in europe with diesel, that do not eat much fuel : 9 liters on highway per 100 km, and 12 liters on town. I do not consider that it's excessive at all, and let's say much less than any normal V8 or even V6 cars.
I will add that i have not an inferiority complex, especially for my penis, not because he is that big, but because i have not the habit to show it in public. I just want to have funs with my car; Cars are more than something that bring me to point A to point B, it's a pleasure to drive good cars.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Pardon yet another reply:
Badtz
Why would we do that? It's all a secret plan to deplete their supply before ours? No, one of the main reasons is that special interest environmental groups have seen to it that WE CAN'T DRILL OR EXPLORE HERE. Hmmm.
Again...I want pollution numbers.
BTW, I don't hear you ripping up construction workers for driving Dodge Rams.
And it's our choice. Some of us don't believe that the Earth is quite that fragile. ONE MORE TIME: Show me the emissions numbers on SUVS
Yeah, yeah, yeah and there are more trees now than in colonial times, Saddam had WOMD, and Dubbya is a nice man who just wants to help us. You know I like your way of thinking. Your " facts ".
I just don't buy them.
Originally posted by Moogs
The reality is, vehicles like the H2, Navigator, Sequoia, Expedition, et al, are simply "bigger" but carry no extra utility. They're show-off vehicles, period. If you REALLY need that cargo space for your 6 kids, you own a Suburban, not one of the afore-mentioned SUVanity products.
There's just no excuse short of having an inferiority complex or just wanting to have the biggest vehicle on the block.
There is of course no reason for the existence of Ferrari, Mercedes-Benz, Lexus, Jaguar, and any sports/luxury car on the road. The luxury features creates no extra utility. Everyone should be driving Chevy Aveos or Dodge Caravans.
The poster who said that Detroit produces SUVs because there's demand for them had it right. If everyone was buy hybrids or very fuel efficient cars the automakers would concentrate on them. However, sales demand is for SUVs. Why would a business stop producing a product that sells well and has high demand to start producing a car that doesn't have much demand? Doesn't make sense to me.
Originally posted by Mr Beardsley
Here's a scenario. Person A drives 40 miles a week in their Ford Excursion. Person B dirves 200 miles a week in their Toyota Echo. Who pollutes more? Personally I like small cars, but if someone wants to drive a tank around its their choice.
The poster who said that Detroit produces SUVs because there's demand for them had it right. If everyone was buy hybrids or very fuel efficient cars the automakers would concentrate on them. However, sales demand is for SUVs. Why would a business stop producing a product that sells well and has high demand to start producing a car that doesn't have much demand? Doesn't make sense to me.
Behold!!! Capitalisim!!
I agree, btw, that most luxury sports cars are purchased by the same type of ego-maniac that most (not all, most) SUVs are purchased by.
I'm not trying to say there should only be one type of vehicle on the road, I'm saying there is no need to go to the unbelievably excessive levels of something like the Expedition or Sequoia or Navigator. Just MO.
They have also used it to demonstrate that they can use the same platform for multiple vehicles to save money, etc.
Also, and I know I have mentioned this before, the reason everyone who I know wants or drives an SUV isn't to fulfill some strange obsession, it is to hold all the car seats they have to carry around for their children.
In California the law is 6 years old or 60 lbs. Two car seats make taking 5 people in a passenger car impossible. If you have three young children, they simply won't fit in a regular passenger car. Also there are states in which the car seat laws now extend up to 8 years old.
The second reason I see people owning SUV's is because they own some toy that requires towing. Passenger cars are nice but they really can't tow a large boat, camping trailer, or things of that nature well.
My wife and I own an SUV (Jeep Cherokee) and a passenger car. (Honda Accord) When we go to Lake Havasu (as we just got back from) and tow the boat, we have to take the Jeep. There is no way the Honda would tow a 3,000 lb+ boat.
Nick
the reason everyone who I know wants or drives an SUV isn't to fulfill some strange obsession, it is to hold all the car seats they have to carry around for their children.
Mmm. Not really. Not in my neck of the woods. In my neck of the woods, most people have 2 maybe 3 kids. And I'm sorry to be a ball buster but giant SUVs are NOT the only vehicles capable of holding that many car seats. Not by a long shot.
First you have the more moderate sized SUVs like the ones you're talking about:
Explorer
Cherokee
Liberty
Xterra
Etc
Then you have the goofy hybrid looking SUVs
RAV4
Turano
The Lexis thing
The Acura thing
etc
Then you have the wagons
Volvo
Subaru
Volkswagen
Honda (?)
Then you have standard mid-sized cars with large back seats
(take your pick, there are probably over a dozen)
My main point is, people do NOT buy mammoth SUVs because it's the only viable solution for baby seats and diaper bags. Sorry but they just aren't. Not even close.
Now, if you're TOWING a boat. OK. I get it. No big deal. If you have to tow a boat, a couple of jet skis, or some other 1500lb+ object then it is somewhat more reasonable that you want a big SUV to do it.
There are still smaller, more efficient vehicles that can do small towing jobs without trouble
Outback
Forrester
etc
but I can't say someone is "crazy" for buying a huge SUV as an alternative, should they be towing things on a frequent basis. Same deal with those huge shiny trucks I see tooling around with chrome wheels and fancy detail work. Dollars to doughnuts most of them never see an ounce of mud or tow a boat.
People buy the biggest, baddest looking thing out there because they want to be perceived as powerful, wealthy, big, whatever. Truth hurts.
Originally posted by Placebo
We have a Toyota Matrix that gets over 35 miles to the gallon, has tons of cargo space, has a sporty engine and very cool look, and has very good emissions. And from the inside, I can't see how an SUV is 'more capacious'. An SUV is just a poor excuse to feel like Godzilla.
I can't find the spec for cubic feet of cargo space for that Matrix but it looks to be about 2/3's the size of my 1994 Cherokee.
Edit: Found them Matrix: 53 cu. ft. of cargo space. Cherokee (not even the largest SUV) 69 cu. ft.
Originally posted by Moogs
Mmm. Not really. Not in my neck of the woods. In my neck of the woods, most people have 2 maybe 3 kids. And I'm sorry to be a ball buster but giant SUVs are NOT the only vehicles capable of holding that many car seats. Not by a long shot.
I didn't say anything about giant SUV's being better than mid-size SUV's with car seats. I mentioned that I have a Cherokee (definately mid-size) and that many people want room for car seats and have to buy a bigger vehicle. If they have any sort of towing needs it just raises the justification more. Likewise in numerous "discussions" with SDW, I have argued that minivans are just as nice as SUV's. However they do fall short in the towing area again.
My main point is, people do NOT buy mammoth SUVs because it's the only viable solution for baby seats and diaper bags. Sorry but they just aren't. Not even close.
I know they aren't the only option but when you look at large passenger vans, minivans with more powerful engines or even larger sedans, much of the "improved" fuel mileage also disappears. Our Accord gets like 30 mpg which is very nice on the wallet. However it can't haul anything back from Home Depot, I can't toss a door on the roof rack, etc. I can't tow ANYTHING with it.
The other issue is that vehicles are increasingly expensive financial propositions for people with the average loan term being five years. I think people would rather buy too much than grow out of a vehicle and have to head back to the dealer to be screwed over again. So maybe they don't the Explorer with the V8 and the third seat. However since it is taking them 5 years to pay who knows if they won't have a boat, quads, travel trailer, more kids, cousins along by then?
but I can't say someone is "crazy" for buying a huge SUV as an alternative, should they be towing things on a frequent basis. Same deal with those huge shiny trucks I see tooling around with chrome wheels and fancy detail work. Dollars to doughnuts most of them never see an ounce of mud or tow a boat.
This could be true but since people have to own their vehicles for so long and have them do so much, I guess they likely want the option available rather than being stuck without.
The huge 1 ton clubcab trucks you are talking about are a bit ridiculous. Yet I see people towing huge $30,000 boats to the river with them, often at about 80 mph.
I could be off because I live in a more rural area now. However I couldn't imagine driving being enjoyable in the city in some Excursion or thing of that nature anyway. When I am down in Long Beach/Orange County/etc. by Cherokee is able to flip a u turn on a two lane street 9 out of 10 times. Driving something bigger and with a huge turn radius would just be unenjoyable.
Nick
But do i have a small penis, just because i like the design of a car?
Yes.
Originally posted by Longhorn
Yes.
Stop projecting onto others.
Originally posted by trumptman
Also, and I know I have mentioned this before, the reason everyone who I know wants or drives an SUV isn't to fulfill some strange obsession, it is to hold all the car seats they have to carry around for their children.
what did people do before SUVs? station wagons what a concept!
pick-ups should be banned too unless they actually use them in their lineof work
Originally posted by burningwheel
what did people do before SUVs? station wagons what a concept!
pick-ups should be banned too unless they actually use them in their lineof work
Yes but those station wagons didn't require the use of car seats. Plus every station wagon my family ever owned while I was growing up had a V-8. How is that saving on gas?
Not only did the not require carseats when I was growing up, they didn't even require a seat. Most families I knew had a car and a pickup. The kids would just ride around in the back of the pickup with no seatbelts and no seats.
In fact, speaking of cargo room, if we were carrying around furniture or things of that nature, not only did you have ride in the back with it, you were often used to hold it down or keep it from damage. "Nick, dammit, don't you let that coffee table slid into that new 8 foot long stereo and scratch it."
Ah yes, ahem, the "good old days," when chain smoking moms were driving station wagons with their children crawling between the seats, and babies laying on the seats.
Nick
Originally posted by Argento
Not only can you judge people's dick size by the size of their car, you can also tell that if your hispanic you must have jumped the border, or if your black you must shoot people. Amazing how sterotypes are so right?!
Please, unless you have something to add to the auto-specific conversation, stfu. Don't twist my words into something they're not. Do you really think I believe everyone with an SUV has a small dick, or maybe, I am trying to get the message across that it's an insecurity / best-the-neighbors / ego-trip kind of thing?
I.E: most people who drive them have no practical need for them beyond getting themselves from point A to point B. Yah there's really no difference in the "stereotype" I used and the two you mentioned (Blacks and Hispanics). I must be a bigot....