Infiniti: Your suggestoin for a SUV

"GoodLuck" <com> wrote in message
news:3f033880$0$79641$fuse.net... 
show 
a 
Just to correct you, for what its designed for the landrover is THE
offroader... However for what you want you would be better off getting one
of the Fake 'suv's' as u choose to call them, probably a 2 wheel drive
Honda HRV (I think thats the 2 wheel drive)

typical Jap build Quality and bullitproofness.. looks the part, but less
bits to go wrong..

HTH

Mark

Then two must be not living at home... I think he would know how many people
live in his house.
"Kurt Ridder" <com> wrote in message
news:bdvi04$1163ne$news.dfncis.de... 

Get a nice Volvo 960/940T/V90 wagon.... if you go used, or a V70 2.4T/T-5/R
AWD if you want to go new

It has SPORT - 180+ hp in case of the 960/940T 210-300hp in case of the V70

It has UTILITY - 74 cubic feet of cargo space, or room for 5 people and
still a lot of cargo... a bit less in the V70s I believe

it is a VEHICLE.... well what else would it be?

and if you wife yells and bitches and moans and screams about the sheer
PROSPECT of owning a wagon..... tell her it is a hell of a lot more
fashionable to be driving around in something that not everyone and the
woman next door is driving. Not to mention Volvo wagons are far more capable
then most SUV's... Ohhh and BTW Volvo also makes a new SUV called the XC90
which has won a few awards, and is quite nice inside... the V70 is nicer
tho.

Oh and don't forget VW... they have the new Touareg SUV coming soon....
seems AWESOME... for and SUV that is.

"GoodLuck" <com> wrote in message
news:3f033880$0$79641$fuse.net... 
show 
a 

Consider a Subaru WRX wagon. SUV-like, 4WD, goes like hell, high quality
construction, and about as much fun as you can have in a car with your pants
on.




- GRL


" It's good to want things. "

- Steve Barr (philosopher, poet, humorist, graphic artist, Visual Basic
programmer)
"GoodLuck" <com> wrote in message
news:3f033880$0$79641$fuse.net... 
show 
a 

"GoodLuck" <com> wrote in message
news:3f033880$0$79641$fuse.net... 

You can get a Bradley Fighting Vehicle for about $550K. Seats 4
comfortably. Great safety for you and your family (at the expense of your
fellow motorists, but if your set on an SUV, you don't give a shit about
your fellow motorists in an accident anyway).

Fuel mileage might be a concern, but again, if you're going to buy an
SUV you don't give a shit about fuel economy, the environment or your fellow
human beings. Screw 'em all and go for the SUV. Feel like Grizzly Adams
during your commute.

GJ

On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 18:17:53 -0400, "Rob Guenther"
<ca> wrote:
 

One never knows what kind of remedial math someone was taught
in today's public school system.


---------------------------------------------------
"America has authentic values, and even politicians
should be held accountable for knowing what these
values are." - Paul M. Rodriguez {}

GoodLuck wrote:
 

Check.
 

Check. She wants a raised minivan. No problem with that - the
entire market of small ot midsize SUVs are this. Worthless off-road,
but nice high up driving position and great in rain and snow.

First off - check out the National Highway Safety site on crash
tests - they recently did a batch of side-impact tests with a
woman and child in the truck.

Most were deathtraps, believe it or not, due to poor side impact
protection. Read the report and buy the ones that tested highest.
In any case - ONLY buy one with side-impact airbags. One of the worst
in the group, the Ford Escape, went to second best with this $350 option.
Almost surely dead to a few days recovering. Most of the ones they
tested WITH this option will be fine other than the ones that intruded
too much into the compartment.

51% of accidents are from side impacts. Most of the drivers
of SUVs (total amount of time driving per day) were women -
significantly higher than men. With SUVs approaching nearly
50% of vehicles on the road in some cities, it's long overdue
to test like this. The tests were done at typical city speeds
as well - a mere 30mph. Considering that most drivers who are
involved in crashes are speeding or go faster than the standard
35mph posted speed on most main roads, even with braking to try to
stop before they hit, 30mph is a very realistic impact speed.

The NHSTA doesn't do this test, which is unfortunate. Guess
what the manufacturers use for their crash data? Yep - the
NHSTA one.

http://www.hwysafety.org/news_releases/2003/pr061703.htm
Truly enlightening reading.

Oh - it's tons worse for cars struck by a SUV. Take a look
at that heap of a Geo that was hit by a pickup truck on
that page. Ow.

Note on the crash pictures pages that the older Detroit
steel(tm) seemed to fare better than most smaller cars.

http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/summary_smsuv_side.htm
The ratings. Ow.

Larger SUVs are to be tested in a few months. As evidenced by the
above tests, size will likely make little difference for many of
the SUVs. Some, but not a lot.

Also, the rear seat on most 3rd-row SUVs is well within the rear
crumple zone, so short of a Expedition or Yukon, you're looking at
3 in the second row and the 3rd row removed.

You'll note this message was crossposted and the author also asked for
replies by email. So I doubt he's reading the responses here. Might as well
cut down on the typing now.