|
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?
Michael Pardee wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message > news:P8Wdnc7eXpZbEgDbnZ2dnUVZ_remnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t... >> 5mph bumpers meant that the usual parking lot dings and bumps weren't >> causing damage, thereby causing a sudden and substantial loss in revenue >> for repair shops, and most importantly, manufacturers. so it was reduced, >> with b.s. reasons cited like you say, but they're untrue. >> > > Consider the collisions you have known. Some of them have been at very low > speeds - parking lots, creeping traffic that suddenly jolted - but the rest > have probably been at much more than 5 mph. Except for the 1-2 mph dings I > can't think of a single collision I've ever witnessed that was under 15 mph. you can do a lot of damage even at that speed. the thing is, what are the /relative/ speeds. if i'm braking and am at 45 the moment of impact, and the guy behind me is doing 55, relative speed is only 10. that's a very common scenario. the dangerous ones are trees and bridges. they're doing exactly zero mph when you hit them and are completely unyielding. > > Proposed bumper height standards were the rage for a while because bumpers > are pointless if they aren't used. Dunno if any standards were actually > passed. The big problem there was (and is) that rear end collisions are > notorious for bumper heights not matching. Each car in line nosedives as it > brakes, so the lead car raises its rear bumper and the following car lowers > its front bumper. that's a hot button topic. there are indeed bumper height standards, but highway patrol never enforce it. as to dive, most modern cars have anti-dive geometry so it's not the issue it may have once been. maybe perpetuating the myth that "dive makes bumper height enforcement pointless" is the deal with the hp. |
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?
"Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote in
news:k72dnbxi49fNmgPbnZ2dnUVZ_oCmnZ2d@sedona.net: > "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message > news:P8Wdnc7eXpZbEgDbnZ2dnUVZ_remnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t... >> >> 5mph bumpers meant that the usual parking lot dings and bumps weren't >> causing damage, thereby causing a sudden and substantial loss in >> revenue for repair shops, and most importantly, manufacturers. so it >> was reduced, with b.s. reasons cited like you say, but they're >> untrue. >> > > Consider the collisions you have known. Some of them have been at very > low speeds - parking lots, creeping traffic that suddenly jolted - but > the rest have probably been at much more than 5 mph. Except for the > 1-2 mph dings I can't think of a single collision I've ever witnessed > that was under 15 mph. > > Proposed bumper height standards were the rage for a while because > bumpers are pointless if they aren't used. Dunno if any standards were > actually passed. The big problem there was (and is) that rear end > collisions are notorious for bumper heights not matching. Each car in > line nosedives as it brakes, so the lead car raises its rear bumper > and the following car lowers its front bumper. > > Mike > > > > yes,the VW Golf that rear ended my 94 Integra nosed under my bumper and struck the exhaust system,bending the pipe at the "zigzag",and only damaging the bumper cover where the license plate mounted. the VW had far more damage to it's nose than my Integra had to its rear. Now,if it had been a full-size SUV,I'd probably have been crushed when my roof caved in....when the SUV climbed over it. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?
"Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote in
news:k72dnbxi49fNmgPbnZ2dnUVZ_oCmnZ2d@sedona.net: > "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message > news:P8Wdnc7eXpZbEgDbnZ2dnUVZ_remnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t... >> >> 5mph bumpers meant that the usual parking lot dings and bumps weren't >> causing damage, thereby causing a sudden and substantial loss in >> revenue for repair shops, and most importantly, manufacturers. so it >> was reduced, with b.s. reasons cited like you say, but they're >> untrue. >> > > Consider the collisions you have known. Some of them have been at very > low speeds - parking lots, creeping traffic that suddenly jolted - but > the rest have probably been at much more than 5 mph. Except for the > 1-2 mph dings I can't think of a single collision I've ever witnessed > that was under 15 mph. > > Proposed bumper height standards were the rage for a while because > bumpers are pointless if they aren't used. Dunno if any standards were > actually passed. The big problem there was (and is) that rear end > collisions are notorious for bumper heights not matching. Each car in > line nosedives as it brakes, so the lead car raises its rear bumper > and the following car lowers its front bumper. > > Mike > > > > yes,the VW Golf that rear ended my 94 Integra nosed under my bumper and struck the exhaust system,bending the pipe at the "zigzag",and only damaging the bumper cover where the license plate mounted. the VW had far more damage to it's nose than my Integra had to its rear. Now,if it had been a full-size SUV,I'd probably have been crushed when my roof caved in....when the SUV climbed over it. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?
"Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote in
news:k72dnbxi49fNmgPbnZ2dnUVZ_oCmnZ2d@sedona.net: > "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message > news:P8Wdnc7eXpZbEgDbnZ2dnUVZ_remnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t... >> >> 5mph bumpers meant that the usual parking lot dings and bumps weren't >> causing damage, thereby causing a sudden and substantial loss in >> revenue for repair shops, and most importantly, manufacturers. so it >> was reduced, with b.s. reasons cited like you say, but they're >> untrue. >> > > Consider the collisions you have known. Some of them have been at very > low speeds - parking lots, creeping traffic that suddenly jolted - but > the rest have probably been at much more than 5 mph. Except for the > 1-2 mph dings I can't think of a single collision I've ever witnessed > that was under 15 mph. > > Proposed bumper height standards were the rage for a while because > bumpers are pointless if they aren't used. Dunno if any standards were > actually passed. The big problem there was (and is) that rear end > collisions are notorious for bumper heights not matching. Each car in > line nosedives as it brakes, so the lead car raises its rear bumper > and the following car lowers its front bumper. > > Mike > > > > yes,the VW Golf that rear ended my 94 Integra nosed under my bumper and struck the exhaust system,bending the pipe at the "zigzag",and only damaging the bumper cover where the license plate mounted. the VW had far more damage to it's nose than my Integra had to its rear. Now,if it had been a full-size SUV,I'd probably have been crushed when my roof caved in....when the SUV climbed over it. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?
"mjc13<REMOVETHIS>" <"mjc13<REMOVETHIS>"@verizon.net> wrote in
news:N_nni.6585$Gx5.225@trndny02: > Michael Pardee wrote: > >> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message >> news:P8Wdnc7eXpZbEgDbnZ2dnUVZ_remnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t... >> >>>5mph bumpers meant that the usual parking lot dings and bumps weren't >>>causing damage, thereby causing a sudden and substantial loss in >>>revenue for repair shops, and most importantly, manufacturers. so it >>>was reduced, with b.s. reasons cited like you say, but they're >>>untrue. >>> >> >> >> Consider the collisions you have known. Some of them have been at >> very low speeds - parking lots, creeping traffic that suddenly jolted >> - but the rest have probably been at much more than 5 mph. Except for >> the 1-2 mph dings I can't think of a single collision I've ever >> witnessed that was under 15 mph. >> >> Proposed bumper height standards were the rage for a while because >> bumpers are pointless if they aren't used. Dunno if any standards >> were actually passed. The big problem there was (and is) that rear >> end collisions are notorious for bumper heights not matching. Each >> car in line nosedives as it brakes, so the lead car raises its rear >> bumper and the following car lowers its front bumper. >> >> Mike >> >> >> > > I've had several 5-10 MPH 'bumps' in cars with 5MPH bumpers, and > was > glad of those standards. Instead of serious damage I just had to > replace a mounting bracket or two. > often,the most expensive part of the repair is if plastic tailight assemblies are broken.Those often cost a lot. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?
"mjc13<REMOVETHIS>" <"mjc13<REMOVETHIS>"@verizon.net> wrote in
news:N_nni.6585$Gx5.225@trndny02: > Michael Pardee wrote: > >> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message >> news:P8Wdnc7eXpZbEgDbnZ2dnUVZ_remnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t... >> >>>5mph bumpers meant that the usual parking lot dings and bumps weren't >>>causing damage, thereby causing a sudden and substantial loss in >>>revenue for repair shops, and most importantly, manufacturers. so it >>>was reduced, with b.s. reasons cited like you say, but they're >>>untrue. >>> >> >> >> Consider the collisions you have known. Some of them have been at >> very low speeds - parking lots, creeping traffic that suddenly jolted >> - but the rest have probably been at much more than 5 mph. Except for >> the 1-2 mph dings I can't think of a single collision I've ever >> witnessed that was under 15 mph. >> >> Proposed bumper height standards were the rage for a while because >> bumpers are pointless if they aren't used. Dunno if any standards >> were actually passed. The big problem there was (and is) that rear >> end collisions are notorious for bumper heights not matching. Each >> car in line nosedives as it brakes, so the lead car raises its rear >> bumper and the following car lowers its front bumper. >> >> Mike >> >> >> > > I've had several 5-10 MPH 'bumps' in cars with 5MPH bumpers, and > was > glad of those standards. Instead of serious damage I just had to > replace a mounting bracket or two. > often,the most expensive part of the repair is if plastic tailight assemblies are broken.Those often cost a lot. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?
"mjc13<REMOVETHIS>" <"mjc13<REMOVETHIS>"@verizon.net> wrote in
news:N_nni.6585$Gx5.225@trndny02: > Michael Pardee wrote: > >> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message >> news:P8Wdnc7eXpZbEgDbnZ2dnUVZ_remnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t... >> >>>5mph bumpers meant that the usual parking lot dings and bumps weren't >>>causing damage, thereby causing a sudden and substantial loss in >>>revenue for repair shops, and most importantly, manufacturers. so it >>>was reduced, with b.s. reasons cited like you say, but they're >>>untrue. >>> >> >> >> Consider the collisions you have known. Some of them have been at >> very low speeds - parking lots, creeping traffic that suddenly jolted >> - but the rest have probably been at much more than 5 mph. Except for >> the 1-2 mph dings I can't think of a single collision I've ever >> witnessed that was under 15 mph. >> >> Proposed bumper height standards were the rage for a while because >> bumpers are pointless if they aren't used. Dunno if any standards >> were actually passed. The big problem there was (and is) that rear >> end collisions are notorious for bumper heights not matching. Each >> car in line nosedives as it brakes, so the lead car raises its rear >> bumper and the following car lowers its front bumper. >> >> Mike >> >> >> > > I've had several 5-10 MPH 'bumps' in cars with 5MPH bumpers, and > was > glad of those standards. Instead of serious damage I just had to > replace a mounting bracket or two. > often,the most expensive part of the repair is if plastic tailight assemblies are broken.Those often cost a lot. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?
jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in
news:bdGdnVqTdIVpkQPbnZ2dnUVZ_hynnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t: > Michael Pardee wrote: >> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message >> news:P8Wdnc7eXpZbEgDbnZ2dnUVZ_remnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t... >>> 5mph bumpers meant that the usual parking lot dings and bumps >>> weren't causing damage, thereby causing a sudden and substantial >>> loss in revenue for repair shops, and most importantly, >>> manufacturers. so it was reduced, with b.s. reasons cited like you >>> say, but they're untrue. >>> >> >> Consider the collisions you have known. Some of them have been at >> very low speeds - parking lots, creeping traffic that suddenly jolted >> - but the rest have probably been at much more than 5 mph. Except for >> the 1-2 mph dings I can't think of a single collision I've ever >> witnessed that was under 15 mph. > > you can do a lot of damage even at that speed. the thing is, what are > the /relative/ speeds. if i'm braking and am at 45 the moment of > impact, and the guy behind me is doing 55, relative speed is only 10. > that's a very common scenario. the dangerous ones are trees and > bridges. they're doing exactly zero mph when you hit them and are > completely unyielding. I don't believe autos should be engineered to withstand impacts with trees,bridge abutments,or other immovable objects. They are not supposed to be tanks. > >> >> Proposed bumper height standards were the rage for a while because >> bumpers are pointless if they aren't used. Dunno if any standards >> were actually passed. The big problem there was (and is) that rear >> end collisions are notorious for bumper heights not matching. Each >> car in line nosedives as it brakes, so the lead car raises its rear >> bumper and the following car lowers its front bumper. > > > that's a hot button topic. there are indeed bumper height standards, > but highway patrol never enforce it. as to dive, most modern cars > have anti-dive geometry so it's not the issue it may have once been. > maybe perpetuating the myth that "dive makes bumper height enforcement > pointless" is the deal with the hp. > IMO,jacked-up SUVs and PU trucks ought to be ticketed every time for being an unsafe vehicle. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?
jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in
news:bdGdnVqTdIVpkQPbnZ2dnUVZ_hynnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t: > Michael Pardee wrote: >> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message >> news:P8Wdnc7eXpZbEgDbnZ2dnUVZ_remnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t... >>> 5mph bumpers meant that the usual parking lot dings and bumps >>> weren't causing damage, thereby causing a sudden and substantial >>> loss in revenue for repair shops, and most importantly, >>> manufacturers. so it was reduced, with b.s. reasons cited like you >>> say, but they're untrue. >>> >> >> Consider the collisions you have known. Some of them have been at >> very low speeds - parking lots, creeping traffic that suddenly jolted >> - but the rest have probably been at much more than 5 mph. Except for >> the 1-2 mph dings I can't think of a single collision I've ever >> witnessed that was under 15 mph. > > you can do a lot of damage even at that speed. the thing is, what are > the /relative/ speeds. if i'm braking and am at 45 the moment of > impact, and the guy behind me is doing 55, relative speed is only 10. > that's a very common scenario. the dangerous ones are trees and > bridges. they're doing exactly zero mph when you hit them and are > completely unyielding. I don't believe autos should be engineered to withstand impacts with trees,bridge abutments,or other immovable objects. They are not supposed to be tanks. > >> >> Proposed bumper height standards were the rage for a while because >> bumpers are pointless if they aren't used. Dunno if any standards >> were actually passed. The big problem there was (and is) that rear >> end collisions are notorious for bumper heights not matching. Each >> car in line nosedives as it brakes, so the lead car raises its rear >> bumper and the following car lowers its front bumper. > > > that's a hot button topic. there are indeed bumper height standards, > but highway patrol never enforce it. as to dive, most modern cars > have anti-dive geometry so it's not the issue it may have once been. > maybe perpetuating the myth that "dive makes bumper height enforcement > pointless" is the deal with the hp. > IMO,jacked-up SUVs and PU trucks ought to be ticketed every time for being an unsafe vehicle. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?
jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in
news:bdGdnVqTdIVpkQPbnZ2dnUVZ_hynnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t: > Michael Pardee wrote: >> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message >> news:P8Wdnc7eXpZbEgDbnZ2dnUVZ_remnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t... >>> 5mph bumpers meant that the usual parking lot dings and bumps >>> weren't causing damage, thereby causing a sudden and substantial >>> loss in revenue for repair shops, and most importantly, >>> manufacturers. so it was reduced, with b.s. reasons cited like you >>> say, but they're untrue. >>> >> >> Consider the collisions you have known. Some of them have been at >> very low speeds - parking lots, creeping traffic that suddenly jolted >> - but the rest have probably been at much more than 5 mph. Except for >> the 1-2 mph dings I can't think of a single collision I've ever >> witnessed that was under 15 mph. > > you can do a lot of damage even at that speed. the thing is, what are > the /relative/ speeds. if i'm braking and am at 45 the moment of > impact, and the guy behind me is doing 55, relative speed is only 10. > that's a very common scenario. the dangerous ones are trees and > bridges. they're doing exactly zero mph when you hit them and are > completely unyielding. I don't believe autos should be engineered to withstand impacts with trees,bridge abutments,or other immovable objects. They are not supposed to be tanks. > >> >> Proposed bumper height standards were the rage for a while because >> bumpers are pointless if they aren't used. Dunno if any standards >> were actually passed. The big problem there was (and is) that rear >> end collisions are notorious for bumper heights not matching. Each >> car in line nosedives as it brakes, so the lead car raises its rear >> bumper and the following car lowers its front bumper. > > > that's a hot button topic. there are indeed bumper height standards, > but highway patrol never enforce it. as to dive, most modern cars > have anti-dive geometry so it's not the issue it may have once been. > maybe perpetuating the myth that "dive makes bumper height enforcement > pointless" is the deal with the hp. > IMO,jacked-up SUVs and PU trucks ought to be ticketed every time for being an unsafe vehicle. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG? RPM @ 70 MPH
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 05:32:54 -0700, Michael Pardee wrote:
> "mjc13<REMOVETHIS> @verizon.net>" <"mjc13<REMOVETHIS> wrote in message > news:Scgni.10134$yx4.2269@trndny08... >> >> I don't know where that intermediate comment came from, but I'm the >> one >> who suggested short gearing, and I think I'm right. A car geared for >> freeway cruising in overdrive should be running at about 2500-2800 RPM >> at that speed. This reminds me of something that Volvo pulled with the >> 140 series, way back when: you could get an optional overdrive unit for >> the manual shift cars, but if you got stuck with a basic 4 speed, it >> would be running 3500RPM at *60* MPH. Honda obviously wanted the car to >> be responsive in 5th, even at the expense of fuel economy. >> >> > I had one of those! A 1970 145 with a 4-speed. Seeing the tach hover > around 4000 rpm in top gear on urban freeways was strange. However, > responsiveness is relative.... > > Mike *I had a '73 1800ES... http://www.volvoadventures.com/1800ESspec.html Much more like this: http://www.packracingproducts.com/acatalog/1800ES.jpg And even more like this: http://web.telia.com/~u11315307/falt...ges/1800es.jpg FUN!!!! |
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG? RPM @ 70 MPH
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 05:32:54 -0700, Michael Pardee wrote:
> "mjc13<REMOVETHIS> @verizon.net>" <"mjc13<REMOVETHIS> wrote in message > news:Scgni.10134$yx4.2269@trndny08... >> >> I don't know where that intermediate comment came from, but I'm the >> one >> who suggested short gearing, and I think I'm right. A car geared for >> freeway cruising in overdrive should be running at about 2500-2800 RPM >> at that speed. This reminds me of something that Volvo pulled with the >> 140 series, way back when: you could get an optional overdrive unit for >> the manual shift cars, but if you got stuck with a basic 4 speed, it >> would be running 3500RPM at *60* MPH. Honda obviously wanted the car to >> be responsive in 5th, even at the expense of fuel economy. >> >> > I had one of those! A 1970 145 with a 4-speed. Seeing the tach hover > around 4000 rpm in top gear on urban freeways was strange. However, > responsiveness is relative.... > > Mike *I had a '73 1800ES... http://www.volvoadventures.com/1800ESspec.html Much more like this: http://www.packracingproducts.com/acatalog/1800ES.jpg And even more like this: http://web.telia.com/~u11315307/falt...ges/1800es.jpg FUN!!!! |
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG? RPM @ 70 MPH
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 05:32:54 -0700, Michael Pardee wrote:
> "mjc13<REMOVETHIS> @verizon.net>" <"mjc13<REMOVETHIS> wrote in message > news:Scgni.10134$yx4.2269@trndny08... >> >> I don't know where that intermediate comment came from, but I'm the >> one >> who suggested short gearing, and I think I'm right. A car geared for >> freeway cruising in overdrive should be running at about 2500-2800 RPM >> at that speed. This reminds me of something that Volvo pulled with the >> 140 series, way back when: you could get an optional overdrive unit for >> the manual shift cars, but if you got stuck with a basic 4 speed, it >> would be running 3500RPM at *60* MPH. Honda obviously wanted the car to >> be responsive in 5th, even at the expense of fuel economy. >> >> > I had one of those! A 1970 145 with a 4-speed. Seeing the tach hover > around 4000 rpm in top gear on urban freeways was strange. However, > responsiveness is relative.... > > Mike *I had a '73 1800ES... http://www.volvoadventures.com/1800ESspec.html Much more like this: http://www.packracingproducts.com/acatalog/1800ES.jpg And even more like this: http://web.telia.com/~u11315307/falt...ges/1800es.jpg FUN!!!! |
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 20:46:52 -0700, jim beam
<spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: >JXStern wrote: >> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 05:52:25 -0700, jim beam >> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: >> >>>>>> I think it's much more the desire for a plush feel that keeps the >>>>>> weight up than safety. >>>>> popular misconception. designed right, you don't need heavy to be "plush". >>>> I agree, tell it to Honda. Heavy is just a low-tech way to get there. >>> it's not honda, it's nhtsa. honda know all about light and economical - >>> crx hf is a shining example. 50mpg, no problem. >> >> I don't think nhtsa has any weight or material requirements. >> >> Maybe there are damage-at-speed requirements or even just ratings that >> would make the composites look bad, until and unless a whole lot more >> engineering was done as I suggested, with modular replacement. >> >> Never look to the government to help, though they can always get in >> the way > >damned straight! a good deal of the modern so-called "safety" agenda >does little more than add massive weight to a car, and thereby ruins gas >mileage. now, how many oilco lobbyists are there in d.c? a good deal >more than there are engineers experienced in matters of vehicle design >and safety i'll wager. > I would like to know how much of that weight is specific to the side-impact standard that simulates getting hit by an SUV. Hey I got a better idea; why don't we require the SUVs to carry a big fluffy bumper so they don't inflict as much damage? And while we are at it, let's require all light trucks to be painted pastel pink. Then we will see how many people *really* need a truck. |
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 20:46:52 -0700, jim beam
<spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: >JXStern wrote: >> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 05:52:25 -0700, jim beam >> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: >> >>>>>> I think it's much more the desire for a plush feel that keeps the >>>>>> weight up than safety. >>>>> popular misconception. designed right, you don't need heavy to be "plush". >>>> I agree, tell it to Honda. Heavy is just a low-tech way to get there. >>> it's not honda, it's nhtsa. honda know all about light and economical - >>> crx hf is a shining example. 50mpg, no problem. >> >> I don't think nhtsa has any weight or material requirements. >> >> Maybe there are damage-at-speed requirements or even just ratings that >> would make the composites look bad, until and unless a whole lot more >> engineering was done as I suggested, with modular replacement. >> >> Never look to the government to help, though they can always get in >> the way > >damned straight! a good deal of the modern so-called "safety" agenda >does little more than add massive weight to a car, and thereby ruins gas >mileage. now, how many oilco lobbyists are there in d.c? a good deal >more than there are engineers experienced in matters of vehicle design >and safety i'll wager. > I would like to know how much of that weight is specific to the side-impact standard that simulates getting hit by an SUV. Hey I got a better idea; why don't we require the SUVs to carry a big fluffy bumper so they don't inflict as much damage? And while we are at it, let's require all light trucks to be painted pastel pink. Then we will see how many people *really* need a truck. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:22 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands