Obama raising car prices and killing people is just for starters

[shagdrum]

Obama raising car prices and killing people is just for starters

Michelle Malkin correctly notes that Pres. Obama’s planned standards for tailpipe emissions from new automobiles will raise the cost of a new car by $600 to $1,300 and continue a regulatory regime that kills motorists. That is more than can be said for the Associated Press, which is trying to bury the increased upfront cost down the memory hole.

As for the increased motorist deaths, which the National Academy of Sciences once estimated at 1,300 to 2,600 in 1993 alone, even a less lethal estimate of 800 excess deaths annually is roughly the number of US troops killed annually during the peak years of the Iraq war. Indeed, the estimated cumulative death toll of 46,000 in 2001 suggests that CAFE standards inflict casualties on the magnitude of Vietnam. The lapdog media, however, does not devote time to reporting the grim milestones when people die in fuel-efficient cars.

The supposed benefits of this regulation are explained by the Washington Post:

The measures are significant steps forward for the administration’s energy agenda by cutting greenhouse-gas emissions that contribute to climate change and by easing U.S. dependence on oil, most of which is imported.​

However, increasing fuel-efficiency reduces the per-mile cost of operating vehicles, which increases the number of miles driven, thus reducing or eliminating any CAFE benefit. Between 1970-2001, the US made cars almost 50% more efficient, but the average number of miles a person drives doubled.

Environmentalists claim the new standards should cut carbon dioxide from tailpipes by 30 percent by 2016. Though that is unlikely, for the reason just stated, the fact remains that cars and light trucks subject to fuel economy standards make up only 1.5 percent of all global man-made greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, Americans will be paying more for cars and continuing to die in ever-greater numbers on the road, all for less than one-half of one percent of man-made greenhouse gas emissions. It is almost as though hardcore greens want to save the planet by killing people, but are only accomplishing the killing part.

Finally, one of the entirely predictable “unintended consequences” of raising the price of new cars will be to keep poorer people driving their old, greenhouse gas-spewing cars. Thus, it should surprise no one that Congress is already considering a �cash for clunkers� program designed to encourage trade-ins. This proposal is a twofer: not only does it attempt to patch a glaring flaw in today’s plan, but it would help save the jobs of all those UAW workers Obama and the Democrats rely upon every other November. Pushing the poor into these new Obamamobiles will also kill more people at the margins, but dead people tend to vote Democratic, so there is no net loss for the Democrats.

 

[luxuryrules]

"All but two members of the committee concluded that the downweighting and downsizing that occurred in the late 1970s and early 1980s, some of which was due to CAFE standards, probably resulted in in an additional 1300-2600 traffic fatalities in 1993."

Linking the above statement to "Obama is killing people" is a bit of a stretch. There's nothing really conclusive there, because you'll notice that study hedged their fatalities statements, and that their estimate consisted of a range that was the same size as their lower estimate. I won't dispute it is adding to the R&D cost of newer cars, but accusing a politician of killing people is just a little far fetched.

You can do, and have done, much better

 

[Calabrio]

You can do, and have done, much better

Smaller and lighter cars aren't less safe to be in than heavier ones?
If you were to be hit by a bus, would you rather be in a Chevy Aveo or a Chevy Suburban?

 

[shagdrum]

"All but two members of the committee concluded that the downweighting and downsizing that occurred in the late 1970s and early 1980s, some of which was due to CAFE standards, probably resulted in in an additional 1300-2600 traffic fatalities in 1993."

Linking the above statement to "Obama is killing people" is a bit of a stretch. There's nothing really conclusive there, because you'll notice that study hedged their fatalities statements, and that their estimate consisted of a range that was the same size as their lower estimate. I won't dispute it is adding to the R&D cost of newer cars, but accusing a politician of killing people is just a little far fetched.

You can do, and have done, much better

That was the headline of the blog, not my own doing. Also, were are you getting that quote from? Which link?

A committee hedging their statements doesn't mean that there is nothing conclusive in the study. As to the other part, I need to know where, specifically you got that quote to evaluate it.

You have seen a dramatic shift in size and weight in automobiles since CAFE standards came into effect. While newer safety features like airbags, etc. may help they are not enough to make up for sheer size and mass. It is not too hard to believe (as you seem to be implying) that smaller cars lead to more injuries and deaths. In fact, as the blog I posted points out, a number of studies show that the smaller cars necessitated by the CAFE standard have lead to more deaths. This study concludes the following:

n 1997, over 21,000 car occupants died in traffic accidents in the United States. We know about the causes and contributing factors for many of these deaths, such as reckless driving, alcohol, and failing to use seatbelts, and we have many government programs aimed at reducing these factors. But there is one government program that actually increases traffic fatalities. This is the federal new-car fuel economy program, popularly known as CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy). CAFE has resulted in a significant downsizing of the passenger car fleet. However, because small cars are less crashworthy than similarly equipped large cars, CAFE has increased car occupant deaths. As this study shows, in 1997 CAFE was responsible for between 2,600 and 4,500 traffic fatalities. If CAFE is made even more stringent, as some advocate, this toll will only increase. ​

There is also this study (sorry, it is the best link I could find of it) that estimates that between "2000 and 3900 lives are lost and 20,000 serious injuries occur each year in traffic accidents resulting from smaller, lighter cars."

This is from the National Academy of Sciences study; specifically, page 24, second column, second paragraph.

The potential problem for motor vehicle safety is that vehicle mass and size vary inversely not only with fuel economy, but also with risk of crash injuries. when a heavy vehicle strikes an object, it is more likely to more or deform the object then is a light vehicle. Therefore the heavier vehicle's occupants decelerate less rapidly and are less likely to be injured. Decreasing mass means that the downsized vehicle's occupants experience higher forces in collisions with other vehicles. Vehicle size also is important. Larger crush zones outside the occupant compartment increase the distance over which the vehicle and its restrained occupants are decelerated. Larger interiors mean more space for restraint systems to effectively prevent hard contact between the occupants bodies and the structures of the vehicle. There is also an empirical relationship, historically, between vehicle mass/size and rollover injury likelihood. ​

 

[04SCTLS]

This can just as easily be turned around to another point of view.

People who buy big gas guzzling fat ass SUV's and 4X4's for casual use are selfishly responsible for the rise in deaths of people driving smaller vehicles.
These big vehicles have high centers of gravity, lower safety standards and handle poorly at higher speeds.

They also lead in rollover deaths most of which wouldn't have happened if the victims had been driving cars.
These vehicles are inherintly unsafe compared to cars when you compare handling from a simple physics standpoint.

 

[ford nut]

Smaller and lighter cars aren't less safe to be in than heavier ones?
If you were to be hit by a bus, would you rather be in a Chevy Aveo or a Chevy Suburban?

In the winter I drive a full size bronco for this very reason.
I want to punish not be punished.

I think Obama is killing the auto industry more then killing people with this regulation.
I doubt people are going to flock to dealerships to buy these cars.
Its the last nail in the coffin of the US auto makers.

I am ready to go buy a new V8 Mustang while I still can.

The cash for clunker program is a real threat to hobbyists.
Can you image marks being turned in for cash because some tree hugger can get $5,000 for turning it into a pop can?
Some people would prefer old cars would just go away.
Next step will be if your auto dosen't make a given cafe standard you have to turn it in.
They will have to pry the keys out of my dying grasp.

 

[fossten]

This can just as easily be turned around to another point of view.

People who buy big gas guzzling fat ass SUV's and 4X4's for casual use are selfishly responsible for the rise in deaths of people driving smaller vehicles.
These big vehicles have high centers of gravity, lower safety standards and handle poorly at higher speeds.

They also lead in rollover deaths most of which wouldn't have happened if the victims had been driving cars.
These vehicles are inherintly unsafe compared to cars when you compare handling from a simple physics standpoint.

Okay, if that's what you really believe, let's see you post the bill of sale of your LS and the purchase agreement on your new Prius. Otherwise, you're a hypocrite.

 

[shagdrum]

People who buy big gas guzzling fat ass SUV's and 4X4's for casual use are selfishly responsible for the rise in deaths of people driving smaller vehicles.
These big vehicles have high centers of gravity, lower safety standards and handle poorly at higher speeds.

They also lead in rollover deaths most of which wouldn't have happened if the victims had been driving cars.
These vehicles are inherently unsafe compared to cars when you compare handling from a simple physics standpoint.

SUV's are less safe? They have lower safety standards? That is news to me. While there has been a decided effort to smear SUV's as unsafe, they have shown to be more safe the cars, specifically in a collision. They do have a higher center of gravity, but they also have more room and material to absorb energy.

Also, who is to say that casual use is somehow selfish? In certain parts of the country, it is necessary. If you live in a rural area that sees lots of bad weather and have a large family it is a necessity. You are making a lot of assumptions about people who drive SUV's everyday, I think. Only they can determine if those vehicles are appropriate for them or not. To say that they are being selfish is a hasty generalization, IMO.

 

[MonsterMark]

I'm looking for a used limo if anyone runs across one.

Several times per week I need to get more than 8 passengers in a vehicle running to and fro.

Passenger vans don't do it for me.

A nice 10 passenger limo will give the kids a great ride and it will be party time just going to games, school functions, etc. Plus, Obama can give me carbon credits for car-pooling and a cash rebate for keeping an extra 2-3 cars off the road per trip. Hell, I'll even stick a diesel in it and run off of McDonalds french fries to satisfy all the greenie weenies.

I love Obama. He's destroying the economy and making me tons of money at the same time. I feel bad for the all the idiots that voted for him. How ironic that they are the very ones suffering the most right now.

Like my pappy used to say...payback is a bitch.:shifty:

 

[04SCTLS]

Okay, if that's what you really believe, let's see you post the bill of sale of your LS and the purchase agreement on your new Prius. Otherwise, you're a hypocrite.

The LS and Prius are both cars with similar centers of gravity.
SUV's and 4X4's are trucks which I consider less forgiving in an emergency manouver and more prone to crash.

IMO SUV's are safer in a crash if they don't roll over but on the other hand are more likely to roll over and crash than a regular car.

There's 2 seperate points in this post here, crashworthiness and fuel economy.

My LS is no econocar getting avg 18 mpg city/hwy but that's 50% more than the 12-14 mpg big SUV's get.
It has a 5 star crash rating being best in it's class for it's year.
I've been in a few small accidents early in my driving history that weren't my fault(mostly ) but they taught me that even not at fault accidents are usually avoidable by defensively driving.
As such, It's best not to crash or be crashed into and I haven't been in one for over 30 years.

Since hypocracy is the tribute vice pays to virtue, I'll admit some personal guilt here.
We just put a fresh all forged internals supercharged 383 LT-1 V8 in my 97 Camaro convertible.
It dynoed out at 406 hp and 435 ft/lbs of torque.
It gets about 14 mpg but can be as low as 10 if driven hard.
It's so much fun and feels like riding a controlled explosion especially off a start.
It was my daily driver summer winter for 5 years when it was a 350 and got 16 mpg. I remember I cost less than 20.00 to fill it with premium 93 when I first got it in 2000.
Now it's just a summer fun car and I'm driving it daily.

Soon I will be putting ILLS's LS turbo kit in which I bought off him last fall.
The posi I got from Ray is in and as quiet as stock open rear end it replaced.
I've been tinkering with cars as a hobby since I was 15.

It's true that some people genuinely need a big vehicle because they haul a lot of stuff or live rural in harsh climate but they're only a small percentage of SUV owners.
I stand by my opinion that SUV's are inherently unsafe because they tend to roll over in an emergency manouver.
Having to meet only truck standards their roofs are not as strong as those of cars which only makes things worse.
They offer a false sense of security especially to women who tend to be less prepared in handling a large vehicle in an emergency than most men.

 

[Calabrio]

Couple quick points.
You're correct, an SUV is an as nimble as a regular car with a low center of gravity. And that autos have more strict crash requirements.

But that's really an example of statistics being used to overshadow the common sense and basic physics. And this focus on SUVs is, well... a bit of a strawman.
If I'm in a front end collision with an immovable object- then I think I'd rather be in a good FULL SIZED CAR and not a truck based SUV. Note: at no time do I prefer to be in a compact car that is so light that it can average 40mpg.

Most SUVs aren't on truck platforms anymore. They are "crossovers."
But the issue here isn't SUVs or cars. It's small vehicles or large ones.

But, with the exception of bridge abutments, we really don't have "immovable" objects in traffic. And it's then that you want as much mass as possible.

A Cadillac STS is 4 star rated in crash tests, among its class.
The Civic is 5-star rated, among it's class.
If you were in a crash involving a Civic and an STS, which would you rather be in??

 

[04SCTLS]

But, with the exception of bridge abutments, we really don't have "immovable" objects in traffic. And it's then that you want as much mass as possible.

Well there's also trees and utility poles which there are plenty more of than bridge abuttments.
My wife was a new driver 4 years ago and since I was worried she may crash I bought her a 97 V6 Taurus which averaged a great 25 mpg city/hwy.
She had taken lessons in a Focus but I thought it was too small for safety.
I didn't want to go any smaller or bigger for her.
Now she drives an 03 VW Bug because she always wanted one.

I'll agree with the "more mass" argument other than as long as the passenger compartment of a vehicle remains basically intact after a severe collision
the occupants will survive if they're wearing seatbelts.

So here's my hypocrite car.
Just breaking in the new engine, testing out the 406 hp.
Got 11 mpg on the last tank but it was glorious.

 

[Aquabrit]

I like that car!

 

[Mr Wiggl3s]

I like my airplanes made out of steel, that way if we go down, i'll be safe

That's why these people are reporters, not automobile designers. I want a vet of the industries opinion. Someone who's designed a few models.

 

[stang99x]

This can just as easily be turned around to another point of view.

People who buy big gas guzzling fat ass SUV's and 4X4's for casual use are selfishly responsible for the rise in deaths of people driving smaller vehicles.
These big vehicles have high centers of gravity, lower safety standards and handle poorly at higher speeds.

They also lead in rollover deaths most of which wouldn't have happened if the victims had been driving cars.
These vehicles are inherintly unsafe compared to cars when you compare handling from a simple physics standpoint.

Then I'm a selfishly responsible navigator and explorer owner. Lead to more rollover deaths is a crock. I spun a 92 explorer around 3 times from over 100mph and it didn't roll. Piss poor drivers make up the most dumbazz crashes. Physics schmisics, its about the driver. I'll take any car or truck on the road on in my navigator. Hell the only things bigger were the burban and excursion for a long time, beyond buses and dump trucks and rigs

Back to the first point though, Obama is just an idiot. All he did was lie like a horses azz to get elected, reverse all his positions (or greatly modify them) and now he's raising taxes, and raising costs accross the board. The stock market still sucks, jobs are still disappearing, and the great black hope is more like a great black failure:shifty:

 

[Mr Wiggl3s]

"...a species that still can't use hairdryers without a small but nonzero mortality rate."

People are stupid.

 

[luxuryrules]

Do we have any EMTs, paramedics, or firefighters in the crowd?

Seeing this stuff firsthand really changes perceptions and you realize where the Media and the General Public get it wrong.

I spent a few years in college running with a variety of EMS units, and I will be happy to make the observation that in new small cars, even when they get obliterated, the passengers rarely ever got anything more than bumps, bruises, and maybe whiplash. Most of the time when we had to cut people out or extract the person with the dashboard in their lap (or worse), it was on a truck or SUV. Yes, small cars from the 80s and 90s were pretty much tin can death traps. But the engineers started getting smart within the last decade and designing cars to transfer the energy of the crash around the passenger compartment, with the single purpose of keeping things from entering the vehicle to maim the occupants. This has done a remarkable service to the safety of those in small cars.

Of course, as Cal has correctly pointed out, a full size car is a good deal better than a truck. Even still, since most full size car designs haven't been seriously updated in some time, they don't do the 'transfer energy around the passenger compartment' trick like the small cars do, and there's still just as good a chance the driver ends up minus a pair of legs or with a steering wheel permanently implanted in his or her chest.

 

[04SCTLS]

Then I'm a selfishly responsible navigator and explorer owner. Lead to more rollover deaths is a crock. I spun a 92 explorer around 3 times from over 100mph and it didn't roll

The road must have been wet as even cars with low centers of gravity will roll if they go sideways at highway speeds.
You were just lucky. One cannot argue with the laws of physics.
Break them and the results are unforgiving.
Even tire pressure is much more critical in an SUV.

A business associate bought a Navigator a few years ago.
He asked me to take it in for service one day.
As I took my first off ramp in the thing at what would be a normal speed for a car it felt like it was going to roll over.
I said to myself- People actually want to buy these ill conceived contraptions?
There's nothing "Sport" about them other than the sport of driving them without rolling over.
Later on he got an H2 Hummer and due to it's wide stance it handled off ramps like a car.
If they just lowered the body more onto the chasis and got rid of some of the ground clearance the vehicles would be much safer.
I suppose that's what's happening with the new crossovers which are much more sensible than truck based SUV's.

 

[shagdrum]

.Even still, since most full size car designs haven't been seriously updated in some time, they don't do the 'transfer energy around the passenger compartment' trick like the small cars do, and there's still just as good a chance the driver ends up minus a pair of legs or with a steering wheel permanently implanted in his or her chest.

Actually, many of the newer full size cars based on old car designs are still updated and refreshed with newer safety tech and more refinement of the design. The best example being the Crown Vic/Grand Marquis/Town Car, which, as far as I can remember, got it's most recent design update in 2003. While the basic design is probably the oldest of any car still being manufactured to day, it gets refined constantly, and they don't ignore the area of safety, either. The design isn't "grandfathered in" when it comes to safety standards; they still have to meet the new standards that year. As the Lincoln page for the Town Car states:

Five stars in five categories. Town Car is the first in automotive history to receive a five-star rating in all five categories. ** On top of that, Town Car has received the government’s highest five-star front crash rating nine years in a row (2001-2009).​

In fact, the three cars built on that aged platform are some of the safest new cars on the road today. They get all the latest safety tech in each refinement of the design, but the still have the larger room as well. So they are going to be safer then any smaller car with the same safety tech.

Also, while the newer versions of these full size cars have crumple zones and what not, they don't need them as much. The whole idea of crumple zones was to make up for the lack of material to absorb energy that is inherent in smaller cars. The larger cars still do the "transfer energy around the passenger compartment" thing, but they are also more able to dissipate a lot of that energy before it even reaches the passenger compartment; thus reducing the amount of energy needing to be transferred around the energy compartment.

If you read most of these reports, as well, the are not comparing older full size cars to newer smaller cars when they conclude that bigger cars are safer, or that CAFE standards have resulted in unneccessary injury or death. They are comparing cars of the same age but of varying sizes. As the National Academy of Sciences report says;

...the appropriate question is...whether motor vehicle travel in the downsized fleet [due to CAFE standards] is less safe then it would have been otherwise. This approach to the question treats the safety characteristics of the motor vehicle fleet at any particular time as a given. That is, the level of safety knowledge and technology in use at the time is independent of the size and weight of the vehicle fleet. Accordingly, the question for evaluating the safety effects of constraints on vehicle size and weight asks how much injury rist would change if consumers were to purchase larger heavier vehicles of the generation currently available to them.​

 

[ford nut]

Do we have any EMTs, paramedics, or firefighters in the crowd?

Seeing this stuff firsthand really changes perceptions and you realize where the Media and the General Public get it wrong.

I spent a few years in college running with a variety of EMS units, and I will be happy to make the observation that in new small cars, even when they get obliterated, the passengers rarely ever got anything more than bumps, bruises, and maybe whiplash. Most of the time when we had to cut people out or extract the person with the dashboard in their lap (or worse), it was on a truck or SUV. Yes, small cars from the 80s and 90s were pretty much tin can death traps. But the engineers started getting smart within the last decade and designing cars to transfer the energy of the crash around the passenger compartment, with the single purpose of keeping things from entering the vehicle to maim the occupants. This has done a remarkable service to the safety of those in small cars.

Of course, as Cal has correctly pointed out, a full size car is a good deal better than a truck. Even still, since most full size car designs haven't been seriously updated in some time, they don't do the 'transfer energy around the passenger compartment' trick like the small cars do, and there's still just as good a chance the driver ends up minus a pair of legs or with a steering wheel permanently implanted in his or her chest.

I work with a volunteer fire fighter.
The shop allows him to go on calls as long as he makes up his time.
Our shop is close to the city he volunteers at.
During the winter he goes on a lot of calls from the two lane highway between our shop and the city.

He tells me the new cars have come along way keeping the passengers safe.
We have talked about this in depth.
It has to do with how the contact is made and what happens after.
Hearing his storys about winter crashes is why I drive what I do in the winter.
I have a better chance in my full frame full size bronco in a auto to truck crash.
The car has it better if it hits a unmovable object.
All of the accidents on that stretch of road come from a combination of things.
Most of the time its someone in a hurry, in bad weather.
They lose it and come across the center lane.

OBTW he drives a full size Chev truck

 

[taylor414ce2003]

wheres Neil Young and his 100mpg 56? Lincoln when you need him! the safety of a tank and and the mpg to make a tree hugger want one

 

[Frogman]

I'll stick to my 11,000 LB curb weight F450 in bad weather. You wanna hit me (or get in my way in an emergency) with a little Prius, or even a full size sedan? Good luck. Likewise, I get out of the way of bigger trucks as much as I can.

Sorry, but Bigger vehicles ARE safer than smaller vehicles. Now, if every one drove a Prius, then that would be another story. But that will never happen.

 

[stang99x]

The road must have been wet as even cars with low centers of gravity will roll if they go sideways at highway speeds.
You were just lucky. One cannot argue with the laws of physics.
Break them and the results are unforgiving.
Even tire pressure is much more critical in an SUV.

A business associate bought a Navigator a few years ago.
He asked me to take it in for service one day.
As I took my first off ramp in the thing at what would be a normal speed for a car it felt like it was going to roll over.
I said to myself- People actually want to buy these ill conceived contraptions?
There's nothing "Sport" about them other than the sport of driving them without rolling over.
Later on he got an H2 Hummer and due to it's wide stance it handled off ramps like a car.
If they just lowered the body more onto the chasis and got rid of some of the ground clearance the vehicles would be much safer.
I suppose that's what's happening with the new crossovers which are much more sensible than truck based SUV's.

No, the road wasn't wet, not even close.....I just know how to drive, and I made a mistake I recovered from. Given the amount of speed, the ability of the tires to hold traction was greatly reduced, hence me spinning around instead of over. (read: friction was reduced between rubber and asphalt due to great amounts of speed)

I arugue the laws of physics everyday of my life. Sometimes I win, sometimes I loose.....even Einstein knew that.

A business associate bought a Navigator a few years ago.
He asked me to take it in for service one day.
As I took my first off ramp in the thing at what would be a normal speed for a car it felt like it was going to roll over.
I said to myself- People actually want to buy these ill conceived contraptions?

Are you kidding me? The navigator is so heavy that it has little if any body roll at reasonable speed. At extreme speed (and I assure you with 7-8 pounds of boost and the rest of the :q:q:q:q i have i have seen extreme speed) it handles just as well as any compact car.....there may be some more wind resistance to slow its progress, but its no more prone to roll than a :q:q:q:qing taurus. It always comes down to the bottom line, which is ability of the driver. A good driver could take a Navi around the same turns as an average driver at the same speeds with the same results. My Navi has seen about 127 with me behind the wheel (limiters removed with programming) and it was just as smooth as 80. I'll concieved is an ignorant way to see what was the most popular vehicle of a generation. (and really still is, minus the crossover platform)

I had an aviator, and the worst thing Ford ever did was turn it into the xover MKX. Thats a pieces of :q:q:q:q. I wouldn't give a dime for that piss poor bastard. I'd happily pay unreasonable prices for the 300hp aviator any day of the week, it was like the perfected explorer finally arrived. Now it's a goddamned xover copycat pos. The new xovers are nothing more than overworked station wagons, and not worth the metal they are made of IMO

 

[Aquabrit]

(read: friction was reduced between rubber and asphalt due to great amounts of speed)

There is a lot wrong with your post, but I'll just focus on this. (because I really can't be bothered)

Once an object is moving, friction is independent of speed. (friction may change slightly due to heat, but to state that friction was reduced due to greater amounts of speed is a falsehood)

Don't even get me started on your flawed logic of saying a vehicle with a greater mass and a higher center of gravity can handle just as well as a vehicle with less mass and a lower center of gravity. (assuming all other things are equal)

An SUV absolutely is more prone to roll than a similarly equipped smaller vehicle.

 

[04SCTLS]

No, the road wasn't wet, not even close.....I just know how to drive, and I made a mistake I recovered from. Given the amount of speed, the ability of the tires to hold traction was greatly reduced, hence me spinning around instead of over. (read: friction was reduced between rubber and asphalt due to great amounts of speed)

I arugue the laws of physics everyday of my life. Sometimes I win, sometimes I loose.....even Einstein knew that.


Are you kidding me? The navigator is so heavy that it has little if any body roll at reasonable speed. At extreme speed (and I assure you with 7-8 pounds of boost and the rest of the :q:q:q:q i have i have seen extreme speed) it handles just as well as any compact car.....there may be some more wind resistance to slow its progress, but its no more prone to roll than a :q:q:q:qing taurus. It always comes down to the bottom line, which is ability of the driver. A good driver could take a Navi around the same turns as an average driver at the same speeds with the same results. My Navi has seen about 127 with me behind the wheel (limiters removed with programming) and it was just as smooth as 80. I'll concieved is an ignorant way to see what was the most popular vehicle of a generation. (and really still is, minus the crossover platform)

I had an aviator, and the worst thing Ford ever did was turn it into the xover MKX. Thats a pieces of :q:q:q:q. I wouldn't give a dime for that piss poor bastard. I'd happily pay unreasonable prices for the 300hp aviator any day of the week, it was like the perfected explorer finally arrived. Now it's a goddamned xover copycat pos. The new xovers are nothing more than overworked station wagons, and not worth the metal they are made of IMO

Uh ya ok
I suppose you're going to tell me how you walk on water too!
IMO your entire post is a bunch of fanciful bs.

Given the amount of speed, the ability of the tires to hold traction was greatly reduced, hence me spinning around instead of over. (read: friction was reduced between rubber and asphalt due to great amounts of speed)

Junk science and argument.

I arugue the laws of physics everyday of my life. Sometimes I win, sometimes I loose.....even Einstein knew that.

You cannot win or loose(lose-sic) or arugue(argue-sic) with physics.
Einstein said God does not play dice with the universe(although he did not believe in a personal God in the religious sense)

Are you kidding me? The navigator is so heavy that it has little if any body roll at reasonable speed. At extreme speed (and I assure you with 7-8 pounds of boost and the rest of the

i have i have seen extreme speed) it handles just as well as any compact car.....there may be some more wind resistance to slow its progress, but its no more prone to roll than a

ing taurus.

The bigger and heavier they are the harder they fall.
It's not the weight but the center of gravity that determines how well a vehicle goes around a corner and turns.

Do you even know what center of gravity means?

It always comes down to the bottom line, which is ability of the driver.

I'll agree with you there however the limits are still the laws of physics.

what was the most popular vehicle of a generation

A Ford F150 pickup so again your wrong on this count.

I'll concieved

It's ill conceived and thats not a typo on your part.
Did you put that apostrophy error there on purpose(?).

The quality of your post makes it look like a tall tale that should be under a heading called:

"Things you've heard posers say that can't possibly be true"