Aesculapius

But one of the reasons that the honda qualifies for ULEV is that it has better mileage.

ULEV is a qualification, not a regulation.

RX8_Buckeye

There's no point in arguing this point on an RX-8 forum, but I'll give it a shot. I have an RX-8 and my wife drives a Mercury Mountaineer. These 2 vehicles have identical fuel economy and have similar MSRPs. The RX-8 is way more fun to drive, but the Mountaineer is by far more practical for many situations. It seems like we're hauling a large load just about every weekend, whether it's furniture, appliances, landscaping material, etc. On many occassions, we've made use of the 7-passenger seating. Last winter, my '8 couldn't venture out of the garage for over a month while the Mountaineer was out and about during the worst of storms (couldn't afford dropping another $1000 on winter tires). Permanent all-wheel-drive and the all-terrain tires make a HUGE difference. The SUV really does feel extremely safe in the worst of conditions.

The only "bad" thing I can see in this SUV is that it is large and thus difficult to see around, and does a lot of damage to other vehicles in a crash. These are both characteristics of pickup trucks, full-size vans, and even minivans. How are these vehicles any better? As long as we're making the most of the capabilities of our SUV, I don't see how anyone can justly criticizing us for owning one.

MadRonin

Gas mileage is just a small part of what qualifies a vehicle for ULEV. While the Honda does get better gas mileage, what qualifies it as a ULEV is that fact that it burns fuel more efficently that other vehicles, therefore releasing fewer pollutants in the atmosphere.

The H2 is a smog machine.

That's true. The government does not require that a vehicle be ULEV, but it does have stringent emission requirements for passenger vehicles up to a certain weight and class. However, vehicles such as the H2, Excursion and other large SUVs, with similar weight, do not have to pass the same requirements for emissions.

The Honda Accord is far more efficient and less pollutant than the H2 regardless of how much gas is uses.

doubleohsmurf

Hate, Hate, Hate. Its a good trait to have.


When compared to your fuel efficient cars, the SUVs are much safer.

H2 vs. Civic, I'd rather have my kids in an H2 buddy. Maybe this means the SUVs are safer for the occupants, just not others on the road. But crash tests and just common sense in comparing sizes and build qualities of the two vehicles tell me that youre wrong.

Not true, if you live in any rural area, you know that farm trucks and SUVs go offroad everyday. I dont even live in a rural area, just near them and throughout the state of Washington, ppl have SUVs in the city that they use offroad on the weekends, every weekend. Just as many use their SUVs offroad daily. I wouldnt be so quick to make such assumptions when you have no evidence to back them up.

The only thing that increases our dependency on foreign oil is environementalists like you who try to stand in the way of our industrial capabilities here at home. Oil reserves in Alaska and all over the US remain untapped because of your liberalist environemental restrictions that have no grounds. With modern technology we simply drill a hole in the ground and run a pipe to a pumping station, now how does this really adversely effect the environement (it doesn't)?
We don't need the middle east because of SUVs that suck down gas which we buy from them, we need the middle east oil because productivity at home is hindered. The funny thing is that if we were to keep this money in our country that we spend on oil, it could be used to investigate and advance alternative fuel technology for the future. The same US oil companies in the future could provide alternative fuel solutions to us later, except we continue to restrict their business through obscene liberal politics.


H2 is not metrosexual, it still outperforms most SUVs on the road, and outpowers them. Its like you're trying to compare yourself to a body builder. Your just sore.

The RX-8 is a car developed by people who enjoy performance automobiles and are enthusiasts in rotary developement. Considering the latest advance in rotary technology, you really have NOTHING to complain about. Oh yes, you go buy a Buick Park Avenue, then see how far you make it when you go skiing next time at any decently located mountain in the northwest.


You use the word peace with such irony, since nothing you stated here has anything to do with real peace.

policyvote

Uh, yeah, did you read anything I wrote? You just rephrased what I said back at me . . . you FEEL safe in an SUV, you don't care about others' safety, and you derive this felling of safety entirely from how big your vehicle is. "Build quality"? Yes, we all know GM's legendary reputation for fine craftsmanship; how can the lowly Civic compare?

I DO live in a rural area. Two minutes to the north of me lies thousands of acres of MSU research farms. Two minutes to the east and south of me is miles of private farmland and forest. Anyone interested in serious work, or serious play, drives a truck. The SUV owners are all in the city and suburbs, commuting and trying to look fashionable doing it.

NEWS FLASH: Oil doesn't just leap out of the ground and into your gas tank. Oil drilling equpment is incredibly huge and requires a small cities' worth of people, buildings, and equipment to operate. Once out of the ground, it has to be pipelined or shipped for miles . . . Exxon Valdez, anyone? There, it has to be refined and processed--more huge plants and machinery, and it's not a pollution-free process, either. Then, once we get refined gas, it has to be hauled all over the country in tanker trucks. Then, once it gets into our gas tanks, it is burned, and the leftovers go into the air we breathe.

This is just hilarious. You think our energy companies and our government LIKE being beholden to OPEC? Our oil consumption is so great, that even though we're one of the world's biggest producers of oil, we can't come close to satiating our demand. And despite what some would have you believe, the ANWR does NOT contain enough oil to rid ourselves of OPEC--in fact, oil companies themselves are only guessing that there are any significant quantities of oil. If opening up the ANWR to drilling would free us of our need for foreign oil, there would be a lot more "obscene liberals" willing to bite the environmental bullet in the best interests of our nation. And where do you get the idea that oil companies are interested in anything but drilling for more oil? Our oilman president--and vice president--have never shown any committment to alternative energy, except for fuel-cell cars. And fuel-cell cars won't have the technology or infrastructure in place to dent oil production for another forty years . . . guess why the oil companies don't mind pushing for them.

LOL, yeah, it outpowers most SUVs on the road because it's also twice as heavy. The Infinity FX45 and Porche Cayenne Turbo both drive circles around the H2. Plus, they're both significantly less metrosexual. The H2 is a Diet Hummer. A "cute" Hummer. It's taking a Hummer and making it everything it isn't--and they arent doing it for offroaders or extreme skiiers, they're doing it for the suit-and-tie guys with more money than cojones. I'm not comparing myself to bodybuilders, I'm comparing myself to preening fools who think conspicuous consumption is a noble goal. Although, most bodybuilders are preening fools, too, but they aren't polluting our air.

Who's complaining? I eat, sleep, and dream RX-8. I don't own one yet, but I will in a year or two. I'm just saying I would have loved it if the fairy-tale stats of the prototype had translated into reality.


Well, if you live in the northwest and your family of five goes skiing every other weekend during the winter, of course an SUV makes sense. However, if you're like one of my old co-workers--a 4'-11", 88 lb., 45-year-old woman with no kids--and your job as an account executive requires you to spend most of your day on the road . . . WHY THE HELL ARE YOU DRIVING A LINCOLN NAVIGATOR? WHY??? I mean, unless she had five invisible personal assistants, the woman was just burning gas and risking the lives of others to prove she had a lot of money to spend and no brains.

Yes, us obscene liberals are such warmongers. Clearly, to love the H2 is to be one with your fellow man, and to suggest that you consider the lives and welfare of others is warlike in the extreme. From now on, I pledge to be slow to war and quick to peace, just like our conservative Republican President.

Peace
policy

doubleohsmurf

You said SUVs are dangerous, I am saying that they are safer than what you propose. And yes the build quality on GM's higher end vehicles are nicer than a friggin Honda Civic.
But you dont live in an area where SUVs represent an essential utility, therefore your ASSUMPTIONS on ALL people who own SUVs are false, and always will be.
Actually you're wrong, if you've ever driven through mideast America, oil is pumped from the ground by small weighted oil pumps. The newer ones are even smaller. And since the entire oil shipping process starts from around the world in the current scenario, there are more chances for environemental catastrophe than you project that would come from nearby alaska. Who said anything about shipping the oil anyways, conservatives have been proposing an oil pipeline that would span the canadian coast to northern washington for years. This would eliminate the short shipping voyages all together. The newest oil pumping technology would require a minmal if any disturbance of the natural lands in that area. And regardless of what you say, there is plenty of oil in alaska to depend on for many years to come, years in which the USA can keep circulating its wealth and advancing itself, instead of paying OPEC countries (some of which produce terrorists) to do it instead. Its a shorter road to alternative fuels and jobs for our country. This would also mean more jobs to lower unemployment even farther, but liberals dont want that.
I didnt say they liked it, I said they're being held from their true potential by people with liberal agendas such as yourself. Politics always have a way of cluttering the American dream.
The H2 is still a better performer than MOST SUVs on the road. You failed to include explorer, escape, expedition, tahoe, suburban, mountaineer, xterra, etc. etc. etc. The Infiniti, Lexus, Cadillac, Lincoln, BMW, and Porsche are all top end competitors, but they are still outnumbered by lower priced vehicles, so the H2 still outperforms most SUVs, as I said.
Check the J-spec RX-8, it does 247 hp with its different exhaust, as statistics advertised. You also said "the inaugural version isn't nearly as economical as I'd hoped (where's my 250 hp, 25 city/30 hwy wundermotor?)" and it sounded to me a complaint.
Maybe because she wants to drive a Navigator, and the fact that this is a free country enables her to do so. I don't enjoy fighting for freedom to see liberals attempt to squander it with political excuses. But I do believe everyone has their say, so you also are entitled to your OPINION.

I said nothing of war, I did say "since nothing you stated here has anything to do with real peace" because every piece of argument you brought to the table about the H2 was negative. And in that negative light, I saw no peace (maybe you confused the context, perhaps you were dwelling on war at the time).

Sincerely-Pete

policyvote

If by "build quality" you mean "niceness" then sure, but if you're spending $55-60K on an H2, there are all manner of "nice" luxury cars with plenty of room and power that still get far better mileage than an H2.

As I said, there are situations where an SUV makes sense. However, the vast majority of SUVs on the road are used as either family minivans or professional commuter vehicles, and that's wasteful and dangerous.

LOL, big commercial drilling operations are not just a whole field of those little pump things. Serious driling is done by serious equipment. Did you not see the Iraq oil fires? Or Armageddon? Or an offshore oil rig?

. . . and building a pipeline covering thousands of miles would have zero ecological impact?

Are we still talking about the little pump things?

Actually, Department of Energy expects that ANWR would contribute roughly about 0.7% to the world's total oil output in 2020. The U.S. Geological Study (USGS) concluded that, given America's current rate of consumption, ANWR would in all likelihood hold a 180-day (6-month) supply of oil. So no, it has nothing to do with liberals not wanting people to have jobs, or any other such ridiculous nonsense.

Yes, it's those darned liberals keeping us hooked on fossil fuels and foreign oil.

Fine, it outperforms most SUVs, but there are plenty that haul just as well and get better than 13 mpg. Plus, there are several that outperform it and STILL get better than 13 mpg.

Well, yeah. They were estimating the car would get 25 city, 30 highway, and I was hoping that would be true. 18 city, 24 highway is a significant drop-off, especially when it seems like the EPA figures are still on the optimistic side.

Yes, it's her right to squander her money. But burn three times as much gas as she needs to, risk the lives of others on the road around her, and pollute the air we breathe, just so she can play some twisted psychological me-game where she is Queen of the Road? I know there can't be laws against owning SUVs, but there CAN be laws forcing lawmakers to make cleaner, safer, and more economical vehicles.

You're right. I see nothing positive about the H2. I look at the H2 and see everything I don't like about America--materialism, falseness, wastefulness, and ZERO regard for others' rights. The H2 is all about taking the biggest slice of the pie that you possibly can, flipping the bird to everyone else. The fact that I hate selfishness and waste is not warlike. I mean, just because Ghandi didn't use violence against his enemies doesn't mean he LIKED them.

Peace
policy

doubleohsmurf

Please explain how driving an SUV is "dangerous." You act as though people's SUVs frequently or randomly just flip over or explode...and the only time I've ever heard of that happening is when Firestone's tires were mismanufactured.

Yes, and how old are those Iraqi drills??? try 1970s and 80s. I said modern technology buddy. And armageddon...hollywood sets...hmmmmm...fake.

Less impact than your proposed Exxon Valdeez recurrence. Look at the Alaska line, its been done, and that was long ago.

Where do you get your sources??? And which USGS is that? are you sure its not the US Geological Survey?? I've never heard of the USGStudy before...must be new...out of some university...like Berkeley.

This article sums well the situation as far as international experts on energy see it, and "amazingly" it acknowledges your arguments as well Policyvote:

PARIS - The International Energy Agency said yesterday it supported U.S. President George W. Bush's plan to allow oil and gas drilling in an Alaskan wildlife refuge as a means of reducing U.S. dependence on oil imports.

But Robert Priddle, executive director of the West's energy watchdog, told Reuters the IEA also backed the greater focus on alternative fuels and energy conservation in a competing Democrat-led Senate bill also aimed at carrying out the first major overhaul of U.S. energy policy in a decade.
Last week, the U.S. Senate passed a bill that differs greatly from the Bush energy plan approved last year by the pro-Bush Republican-controlled House of Representatives by rejecting the proposal to allow drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).

"There are now two quite contrasting bills from the House and from the Senate, and there are some good things in both," Priddle said in an interview during the launch of the Paris-based IEA's review on U.S. energy policy.

"The Senate bill does provide for a renewables portfolio and tax incentives for a new Alaskan pipeline, while the House bill was weaker on renewable incentives but was more open to the exploitation of ANWR," Priddle said.

In its 146-page report on US energy policy on fuel savings, refining capacity and the environment, the IEA urged Washington to convince the public that environmental problems surrounding the exploitation of domestic oil and gas can be overcome.

Environmentalists are fighting the drilling plan, saying the Alaskan refuge does not contain enough oil to justify destroying an area sheltering caribou, polar bears and migrating birds.

Pro-drilling advocates say the U.S. needs more oil and that 735,000 jobs would be created nationwide if oil companies were allowed to start exploring the wildlife refuge.

"It is disappointing that the Senate bill does not propose the opening of the Arctic refuge," he said.

"The U.S. is very heavily dependent on imported oil. We would like to see the opening of the Arctic Refuge in an environmentally sensitive way for a secure energy supply."

But while supporting drilling in the Arctic Refuge, the report also said that U.S. energy policy did not sufficiently encourage the development of new, cleaner energy sources, including renewables such as wind and solar power.

"In some areas, the U.S. policy debate is too narrowly based on current economic benefits and costs. Insufficient weight is given to external environment costs," it said.

Priddle added it was also disappointing that the Senate did not propose that corporate average fuel efficiency (CAFE) standards apply to sports utility vehicles (SUVs), since their growing use has resulted in a fall in fuel economy.

"Different CAFE standards for cars and light trucks ... should be addressed as a priority," the report said.

The report urged the government to allow the Department of Transportation to issue by 2004 new CAFE standards governing fuel specifications, which would then be strengthened progressively.

Priddle hoped that Senate and House negotiators, who are expected to spend months trying to work out differences in the two energy bills, would take account of IEA recommendations in the final energy package to be sent to the White House.

"We hope we have some influence on this process, but we don't exaggerate our influence," Priddle said.

Story by Marguerita Choy

REUTERS NEWS SERVICE

When you can prove that she's risking lives any more than other vehicles on the road really are as far as an accident goes call me please.

And when you can see that the only twisted psyche game is the one in your head, maybe you'll realize that people are making progress towards better SUVs and that the H2 is nothing more than a dream come true for thousands of people, not an object meant to spark hatred and separation among fellow Americans.

Funny, I always thought it was an SUV developed by GM and American General to cross the boundries between civilian luxury SUVs and the military issue HMMVVW. Guess I was wrong...


Sincerely-Pete

doubleohsmurf

LOL, we should invite some of the lounge people from the rx7club to help make this an interesting debate...

T.T.

It's been my experience that people that drive expensive SUVs never take them off road because they are so expensive. So yeah, SUVs (at least expensive ones) are just for looks.

djbentle

I'm not a liberal, I do believe people should be free to do what they want as long as they aren't infringing on other peoples rights, and I happen to agree with you that with modern technology oil drilling can be done with minimal environmental impact, although I don't think there is enough oil in the ANWR to make a difference in the long run, but this I take issue with.

Clearly large SUVs and pickup trucks are a much greater threat to others on the road than smaller, lighter cars. Here are some numbers, look at the chart halfway down.
http://www.gladwell.com/2004/2004_01_12_a_suv.html

Without a doubt, large trucks and SUVs cause proportionately more deaths to others vs. drivers than cars do. This isn't that suprising, what is surprising is that most of them are siginificantly less safe for their drivers as well. The fact is that SUVs are not held to the same standards (safety or emmissions) as cars. The moral of this data is you are better off driving a well made vehicle than a large, heavy vehicle.

Admittedly those numbers don't account for possible reasons besides safety that SUVs may be involved in more accidents, or that those accidents result in more deaths (e.g. driving style, typical driver profile etc..), but the fact remains, stastically you're more likely to be killed in many SUVs than most midsize, and even some compact cars. And you're much more likely to kill someone else.

My problem with SUVs boils down to the reasons many (definitely not all) people own them. I have no problem with people that need to do regular towing, travel regularly in slippery or off-road conditions, need to haul lots of stuff, or for that matter just think it's cool and want a big truck. The biggest problem I have is with the sizable minority (majority?) that are owned by families because they think they are safer, when the fact is they are less safe to them than a good family car, and much less safe to others than almost any family car. They are being deliberately mis-lead and the automakers are perfectly willing to perpetuate this myth that they are incredibly safe because it is hugely profitable to sell these cheap to make, low technology trucks at very high profit margins.

Just my two cents,
David

doubleohsmurf

DJbentle-I understand that the SUVs are dangerous to people on the road because of their size, so are semi trucks for the same reason on a larger scale. What I am getting at is that are they not any more dangerous for the occupants?

To TT, maybe people in your area dont, but where I live, youll see Navigators and Escalades and Cayennes and Hummers off road as much as any other SUV.

Edit: sorry to anyone if I miscontrued earlier, I do understand that SUVs are dangerous when you place on up against a smaller car in an accident. But are they more dangerous for the occupants in general? And specifically on an H2, how dangerous is it for the driver and occupants to ride in an H2??? Is it more dangerous than the proposed economy car??? Is this fact? I will research.

shigginsrx8

I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure that SUV's dont require the same crumple zones that cars do. I know that they have them, but they arent as efficient at dissipating energy as their car counterparts. With that said, an SUV maybe safer for the occupants in a car on car crash, but not in a car on object accident. I am sure that I have read that the majority of accidents are single car.

I off road a lot up where I live. I have never seen an escalade or navigator even go in the dirt parking lot. I saw one cayenne which preformed aliright. I also have seen 2 hummers, which preform well, but compared the the dozens i see on the raod, thats not a good average. Again this is my country bumpkin area. not everyones

doubleohsmurf

I'm still NOT saying the H2 is better than an RX-8 IMO, but this is a good article on how and what an H2 is made of.
http://www.vettes.com/GM/04/hummer/

doubleohsmurf

http://www.hwysafety.org/safety_fact...ts/passveh.htm

Deaths in passenger vehicles:
Year, Car drivers, Pickup and SUV drivers, Cargo and large passenger van drivers, All drivers, All passenger vehicle occupants
1975 16,141 2,751 450 19,349 30,601
1976 16,385 3,237 452 20,091 31,724
1977 16,903 3,510 510 20,941 32,823
1978 18,047 4,054 629 22,758 34,923
1979 18,064 4,330 696 23,109 35,026
1980 17,847 4,460 666 22,990 34,995
1981 17,553 4,310 628 22,506 33,711
1982 15,234 3,894 517 19,663 29,653
1983 15,056 3,794 465 19,336 29,151
1984 15,785 3,979 498 20,298 30,091
1985 15,429 4,091 487 20,056 29,846
1986 16,503 4.454 493 21,503 32,224
1987 16,722 4,847 544 22,157 33,145
1988 17,182 5,182 496 22,883 34,104
1989 16,775 5,242 516 22,554 33,599
1990 16,200 5,258 485 21,953 32,711
1991 14,938 5,199 402 20,551 30,810
1992 14,337 4,821 410 19,573 29,457
1993 14,547 5,082 403 20,036 29,994
1994 14,911 5,270 456 20,642 30,813
1995 15,322 5,679 452 21,455 31,912
1996 15,379 5,801 446 21,631 32,353
1997 15,307 5,913 469 21,701 32,329
1998 15,035 6,138 452 21,627 31,779
1999 14,809 6,644 439 21,899 32,008
2000 14,717 6,623 475 21,819 32,109
2001 14,552 6,907 400 21,862 31,938
2002 14,789 7,195 383 22,369 32,480
Note: Passenger versions of vans often referred to as minivans are classified as cars.

doubleohsmurf

http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_rat..._midluxsuv.htm Although H2 is not listed, here is the rest of the luxury SUV safety ratings in its category.

shigginsrx8

those are interesting little sites, thanks for the find.

shigginsrx8

all of the bigger SUV's are missing.

djbentle

Unfortunately, we need those numbers as a percentage of total vehicles on the road to be very useful. One thing that's interesting is that the car numbers have dropped steadily, while the SUV numbers have climbed steadily, but still it seems likely that the total number of SUVs has climbed much faster than the total number of cars.

As for whether they are more dangerous to occupants, I think the answer is it depends on the SUV. Clearly from the numbers in the article I posted, the Ford f150 (last generation, not the new one) is one of the most dangerous cars on the road to the driver. Why is patently obvious from this picture: http://www.bridger.us/2002/12/16/Cra...operVsFordF150

There are also SUVs which fair quite well, and cars which perform badly (unfortunately mostly from US manufacturers), and that list doesn't include luxury SUVs like those made by BMW, porsche, MB etc... which I think would perform even better. But the point is if that f150 had to meet car safety standards, it would not be on the road, period. I think most of the truck based SUVs at the least do not provide better protection than a good passenger car, and in most cases provide worse. Obviously they will perform better in some crashes and worse in others, but as a whole I think they are worse.

In my opinion there is no reason for this, other than the manufacturers enjoying the large profit margins that comes with the simple construciton and old technology in these trucks. Again, I don't really even have a problem with them being less safe, although that f150 is pushing it, I think as a whole they are still relatively safer than most cars were a few decades ago. I mostly have a problem with the manufacturers misleading people into thinking they are safer, and with the soccer moms who buy them at the expense of everyone elses safety and their own (plus the einvironmental, or world stability impact) because they think they are safer.

David

djbentle

Those are good articles, and actually the chart further down on the page where you got those numbers is quite interesting:

It shows SUVs as a whole being slightly safer than passenger cars as a whole, although not taking into account the people they kill obviously. I submit, although with no evidence, that if you split out the truck based SUVs, the numbers would be closer to the pickups which they are based on. I would be curious to see.

Also, while the luxury SUVs seem to be doing quite well, you can see from the same page, that the standard SUVs seem to do much worse as a group.

http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_rat...ary_midsuv.htm

Now, I'm pretty much just arguing devils advocate, how can a sports car fan be too critical of what other people drive . It's still an interesting conversation though.

David

mysql101

I would also like to see how many of those killed, were killed BECAUSE of the SUVs and large trucks.

doubleohsmurf

I think you are right in what you have said, especially when it comes to how we compare results. BTW, that linkie no workie, but either way I still agree. Yet when it comes to the H2 specifically, I still havent found many results, but I don't think it is as horribly unsafe as some would project it to be.

doubleohsmurf

http://www.hwysafety.org/safety_fact...cts/trucks.htm
as far as large trucks go, they seem not to test large SUVs too often, no results on H2 as far as I can find...yet.

doubleohsmurf

yes but keep in mind those results are only for infant fatalities.

djbentle

I think they meant the vehicles were 1-3 years old, not the fatalities . It certainly looks confusing from the chart titles, but if you read the text around the articles it says they used fatalites from vehicles 1 to 3 years old in each of those time periods. That way older, out of date vehicles don't skew the numbers.

David