Hi Scott.
scott@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 2. The more radical among the self-named "environmentally aware" seem to
> think that they're solely responsible for most of the world's environmental
> ills. This despite the fact that at least one model SUV has earned at least
> a "Low Emission Vehicle" (maybe even an "Ultra Low Emission Vehicle," I
> forget...) recognition from the California (strict) and US (not as strict)
> EPA, and that a number of others rate no worse than many automobiles.
Well... Like many "standards" the LEV standard cannot be taken at face
value. The emissions tests don't measure the emissions to get from point A
to point B and therefore omit some very relevant information. SUVs are heavy
and their poor aerodynamics combined with drivetrain drag and knobby tires
make for much higher fuel consumption(and emissions) than the tests
indicate.
> Like anything else, some people use things, some abuse them.
So true... But I think many people's like/dislike of SUVs this isn't really
about what does/doesn't come out the tailpipe. It has more to do with the
philosophy behind the SUV. It is a philosophy of ME FIRST. eg: "but I get
such a good view of traffic" - but you block everyone's view behind you!
"but it's so much safer in a crash" - but I recently saw road test data
showing a certain SUV's braking distances from 70mph to be 30 FEET longer
than a comparable sedan... 30 FEET!
Personally I don't consider your old Samari or Landcruiser in the same vein
as modern SUV's. The design criteria of your vehicles is form follows
function while modern SUV's have lost all sight of that.
- Matt Crawley
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|