GM Inside News Forum banner

1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,692 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Those California activists are at it again.... ;)

-----------------------

City workers don't need SUVs

Even before the high-end Lincoln Navigators and Cadillac Escalades came on the scene, the propaganda on SUVs had long been exposed: The vast majority of them never once see a dirt road, let alone the kind of rugged driving for which they are supposedly designed and purchased.

In other words, most city people didn't really need SUVs they just want them. And the same goes for city workers.

As the state of California prepares to set fuel-efficiency standards for its vehicles, Long Beach Councilman Val Lerch is right to ask the City Council to find ways to reduce SUV purchases in the city fleet.

Trucks are indispensable for maintenance and construction work, and sedans are needed (sometimes) for bureaucratic and official functions. Expensive, gas-guzzling SUVs have little necessity, if any, in a city fleet.

The council should back Lerch's request for a report on the issue tonight and, later, follow it up with action.

http://www.presstelegram.com/Stories/0,141...1931689,00.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,546 Posts
Get over it tree huggers! :argue:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
259 Posts
I'll bet that every anti-SUV article on the net will reference the Navigator - Escalade - or the H2.

Never bringing to light the existance of Japanese-sourced SUV's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,546 Posts
Originally posted by GroundedZ@Feb 4 2004, 08:29 PM
I'll bet that every anti-SUV article on the net will reference the Navigator - Escalade - or the H2.

Never bringing to light the existance of Japanese-sourced SUV's.
Duh, don't you know that there is nothing wrong with imports? They are god's gift to automobiles.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27 Posts
A lot of the SUVs that come under attack are just vans/station wagons built on a truck chassis. I don't see any difference between trucks, suvs or vans in terms of fuel efficiency. Minivans and "suvs" built on cars chassis have better efficiency, but not a whole lot more.

Nobody complains about vans (hmm, I wonder why those tree-hugging hippies don't complain about vans?...) so what the hell is their problem with suvs? I personally don't like driving behind them (especially the tinted ones) in my firebird because I'm so low to the ground and they take up my entire view. And I'm not a big fan of parking between two huge suvs that take up a bit of room on the next guys' stalls, but I can't say that I don't like them. If you need a truck, and you have to haul people as well as gear and equipment, then what's wrong with an suv?

I wouldn't ever put one on my top 10 list of vehicles that I want to buy, but I do drive a '79 K5 blazer.... But that's mainly for causing trouble and "off-roading" as well as hauling stuff and towing my '69 dart. It's all "utility" and no "sport!"

So... I guess I don't really support suv's any more than I do station wagons or vans... but I also don't agree with hippies and their anti-american, anti-choice schemes. Those losers can go buy their damned electric cars and recharge them overnight for 30 minutes of city driving.

Laters,
Scott
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Top