JoshK Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 Not to get involved in this crap (again), but the forester is built on a car frame, unlike the others you list. I'll point for the umptenth time that car frames are just plain better for 99.9% of real world driving. Niw that being said, all the other vehicles you list are reasonable size. I don't remember ursa's argument but the argument of me and others was that it was the absurdely large and stupid vehicles that suck, such as expeditions, suburbans, etc. A blurry line? maybe, but it seems easy enough for me to look at a suburban and realize it's moronic excess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 JGowans said: Ursa_Eagle said: I'm going to try and nurse my car through until this summer when the Forester 2.5XT comes out. More ground clearance, more room, and more torque, and almost as much HP as the WRX. Also more practical. There'll definately be a sacrifice in handling, but Foresters don't exactly handle poorly. I just don't know how much it's gonna cost. Hold the fuck up and stop the press. Aren't you the very wankstain that bitched and bitched about how stupid SUVs were and how those driving them had 2" cocks? At what point does a car stop being a car and become an SUV? I'd reckon that a Forrester is pretty fucking close. It's a lot bigger than most fucking cars which is what you whined about for fucking umpteen pages and at one point threatened to sue me should I crash into you. You're so fucking hypocritical! You can claim it's a car or a fucking crossover but it's semantics. It's classified as a Small Sports Utility Vehicle compared to vehicles such as the Ford Escape, Jeep Wrangler, and Rav4. Fuck off you wanker!!! JGowans, This is one of the most idiotic posts I've ever read. Some quick research will show that the Subaru WRX wagon gets 19/26mpg with automatic trans. The Forrester, which you decry as an evil SUV gets...21/26mpg! Additionally, the Toyota Rav4 gets 32mpg (hwy)!! So let me see if I have this right by you: 1)SUV's and their owners sre stupid/arrogant because they drive gas hog vehicles. 2) Ursa is a "sellout" and a "hypocrite" because he is looking at a Subaru Forrester, which you deem to be an SUV. The WRX and the Forrester get the same gas milage you moron! And the Rav4 does even better!! The only conclusion I can draw here is that you are blinded by an emotional bias against SUV's. You seem unwilling to consider the facts before you spout off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGowans Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 Fact is, IT IS CLASSIFIED AS A SMALL UTILITY VEHICLE...not a car. I own an SUV by the way so it's not me who argues against them. It was Ursa Eagle complaining about the size of them..not gas consumption. So, before you get your fucking knickers in a twist, it's not me who's complaining about them on one hand and buying one on the other. I own one and am fucking proud to. The Forrester is probably bigger than 90% of the "cars" on the road and therefore an added hazard (if you follow Ursa_Eagle et al's line of reasoning). So, you can all fuck off for that matter. My post isn't idiotic. It's fucking fact and to claim otherwise is fucking idiotic...wanker! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 Actually, the "classifaction" you speak of is bogus. The big distinction is the forester is *not* classified as a light truck by the EPA, meaning it meets standard car safety, fuel effeciency, and emissions standards. The same cannot be said about the larger gas guzzling POS SUVs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lummox Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 JoshK said: Actually, the "classifaction" you speak of is bogus. The big distinction is the forester is *not* classified as a light truck by the EPA, meaning it meets standard car safety, fuel effeciency, and emissions standards. The same cannot be said about the larger gas guzzling POS SUVs. tellin you, its safer to be in the big ole suv while smashing a little subaru. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 lummox said: JoshK said: Actually, the "classifaction" you speak of is bogus. The big distinction is the forester is *not* classified as a light truck by the EPA, meaning it meets standard car safety, fuel effeciency, and emissions standards. The same cannot be said about the larger gas guzzling POS SUVs. tellin you, its safer to be in the big ole suv while smashing a little subaru. Thanks, but I'll take my chances in a vehicle that is actually capable of *avoiding* accidents (features such as brakes that work, low CG, and *gasp*, handling!) rather than simpy having to resort to crashing into shit and hoping for the bst. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Attitude Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 lummox said: JoshK said: Actually, the "classifaction" you speak of is bogus. The big distinction is the forester is *not* classified as a light truck by the EPA, meaning it meets standard car safety, fuel effeciency, and emissions standards. The same cannot be said about the larger gas guzzling POS SUVs. tellin you, its safer to be in the big ole suv while smashing a little subaru. And if your drunk and chatting on your cell phone while driving, you're less likely to get hurt and can call 911 faster. Keeping your eyes closed will also reduce the chance for shards of glass from getting in your eyes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Attitude Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 JGowans said: Ursa_Eagle said: I'm going to try and nurse my car through until this summer when the Forester 2.5XT comes out. More ground clearance, more room, and more torque, and almost as much HP as the WRX. Also more practical. There'll definately be a sacrifice in handling, but Foresters don't exactly handle poorly. I just don't know how much it's gonna cost. Hold the fuck up and stop the press. Aren't you the very wankstain that bitched and bitched about how stupid SUVs were and how those driving them had 2" cocks? At what point does a car stop being a car and become an SUV? I'd reckon that a Forrester is pretty fucking close. It's a lot bigger than most fucking cars which is what you whined about for fucking umpteen pages and at one point threatened to sue me should I crash into you. You're so fucking hypocritical! You can claim it's a car or a fucking crossover but it's semantics. It's classified as a Small Sports Utility Vehicle compared to vehicles such as the Ford Escape, Jeep Wrangler, and Rav4. Fuck off you wanker!!! The Forester is the same length and wheelbase as the Impreza and has the same drivetrain. Curb weight is about 150 lbs more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGowans Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 JoshK said: Actually, the "classifaction" you speak of is bogus. It's even on Subaru's site. If it's bogus, why don't you call up Subaru and tell THEM they're talking shite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 I'm talking about actual EPA classifactions jgowans, not marketing classifications. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGowans Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 JoshK said: I'm talking about actual EPA classifactions jgowans, not marketing classifications. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is not a marketing company. Why can't you just fucking admit you're wrong and I'm right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa_Eagle Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 JGowans said: It's even on Subaru's site. If it's bogus, why don't you call up Subaru and tell THEM they're talking shite. If you now think that a Forester and a circumcursion are in the same ball park, you need to take your head out of your ass and stick your thumb back in. They're in two totally separate ballparks (actually, the circumcursion isn't in the ballpark, it takes up the whole soccer field!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 Fine, you're right, you're really fucking smart. The point is you bash on ursa for wanting this thing when in reality it's a 3100 pound vehicle with good safey ratings, built on a car frame, has to meet car emissions standards and is quite resonably sized. Grouping it in with the other shit vehicles ursa bashed on is a pretty large stretch. And, like I said for the sake of that entire 500 page arguement the classifaction system that counts is the EPAs distiniction between cars the laugable classification of giant SUVs as light trucks or work vehicles. Whatever, bash on ursa all you want, I dont give a shit, but if you can't see the difference between a 3100lb forestor and 6000 pound yukon or suburban, you may want to look harder. BTW, the insurance institude for highway safety is just a way for your insurance company to charge you more money for insuring a particular car, their classifications have nothing to do with government regulations. take care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa_Eagle Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 JGowans said: JoshK said: I'm talking about actual EPA classifactions jgowans, not marketing classifications. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is not a marketing company. Why can't you just fucking admit you're wrong and I'm right? The EPA won't give mileage estimates for the circumcursion because IT'S TOO FUCKING BIG. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGowans Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 Ursa_Eagle said: JGowans said: It's even on Subaru's site. If it's bogus, why don't you call up Subaru and tell THEM they're talking shite. If you now think that a Forester and a circumcursion are in the same ball park, you need to take your head out of your ass and stick your thumb back in. They're in two totally separate ballparks (actually, the circumcursion isn't in the ballpark, it takes up the whole soccer field!) So, let me get this straight. Ursa and Josh weren't talking about SUVs per say. They were merely referring to specific models of SUVs. Is that the party line now? So, earlier when Ursa branded all SUV owners as having 2" cocks and threatened to sue me should my SUV Land Rover crash into him, he really meant a Navigator. Is that what you're saying now? You dug yourself in a big fucking hole spouting your holier than though mantra against the owners of SUVs and now that you're contemplating buying one, you're saying, "Well, it's ok to own certain models but not others." Whatever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 The local news did some piece about that piece of shit when it first came out. They drove it around for a week or so on the highways, around town, etc. The trip computer gave them an average of 8 MPG. Remmber that the EPA estimates come indirectly from the manufacture and represent best cases. Shit, I wonder what a tank gets? It can't be that much worse than 8mpg. Way to go ford, you've really outdone yourself. That is one quality vehicle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 JGowans said: Ursa_Eagle said: JGowans said: It's even on Subaru's site. If it's bogus, why don't you call up Subaru and tell THEM they're talking shite. If you now think that a Forester and a circumcursion are in the same ball park, you need to take your head out of your ass and stick your thumb back in. They're in two totally separate ballparks (actually, the circumcursion isn't in the ballpark, it takes up the whole soccer field!) So, let me get this straight. Ursa and Josh weren't talking about SUVs per say. They were merely referring to specific models of SUVs. Is that the party line now? So, earlier when Ursa branded all SUV owners as having 2" cocks and threatened to sue me should my SUV Land Rover crash into him, he really meant a Navigator. Is that what you're saying now? You dug yourself in a big fucking hole spouting your holier than though mantra against the owners of SUVs and now that you're contemplating buying one, you're saying, "Well, it's ok to own certain models but not others." Whatever. I dont recall what Ursa said, that thread was too big, but if you feel like it you can go look at what I said. I generally believe there are better alternatives to most all SUVs, simply because they just aren't that great vehicles, but I could really care less about a 4runner or a jeep or an escrape. My problem all along has been the huge pieces of shit driven by yuppies for no reason. They have become the station wagon of the 90s and 2000s. Problem is station wagons were good vehicles, and these pieces of 1940s technology crap are not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGowans Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 I'm not even going to bother debating anymore because some of you shift your opinions to suit the context of the argument and backtrack and dodge what you may have said in the past. You'd make a great politician. Hypocrites. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 Whatever, I've been consistent from the beginning. I've had the same opinions on those vehicles since they came out years ago. I agree, however, debating this is pointless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 JGowans said: Hold the fuck up and stop the press. Aren't you the very wankstain that bitched and bitched about how stupid SUVs were and how those driving them had 2" cocks? At what point does a car stop being a car and become an SUV? I'd reckon that a Forrester is pretty fucking close. It's a lot bigger than most fucking cars which is what you whined about for fucking umpteen pages and at one point threatened to sue me should I crash into you. You're so fucking hypocritical! You can claim it's a car or a fucking crossover but it's semantics. It's classified as a Small Sports Utility Vehicle compared to vehicles such as the Ford Escape, Jeep Wrangler, and Rav4. Fuck off you wanker!!! Dude, don't spill your Scotch; fucking settle down a minute! There. Now, the Forester is even smaller than the regular Legacy wagon, and you could probably fit two of them in the back seat of an Expedition. It is 99% car and maybe 1% SUV 'cause of the all-wheel and the clearance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted April 24, 2003 Share Posted April 24, 2003 Instead of bashing SUV's and their owners, why not take a more unchallengeable position? Stop ragging on SUV's, arguing about size/vehicle classifications/etc, and simply take a position based exclusively on fuel consumption and tailpipe emissions? Just declare, "I believe anyone who drives a vehicle for pleasure/commuting that gets less than xxmpg is raping the planet"....or something along those lines? Just bashing SUV's and their owners accomplishes nothing and sounds like so much class envy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erik Posted April 24, 2003 Share Posted April 24, 2003 wow fairweather said something that might be agreeable on all fronts! 4 reason! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iain Posted April 24, 2003 Share Posted April 24, 2003 Post deleted by iain Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa_Eagle Posted April 24, 2003 Share Posted April 24, 2003 Fairweather said: Instead of bashing SUV's and their owners, why not take a more unchallengeable position? Stop ragging on SUV's, arguing about size/vehicle classifications/etc, and simply take a position based exclusively on fuel consumption and tailpipe emissions? Just declare, "I believe anyone who drives a vehicle for pleasure/commuting that gets less than xxmpg is raping the planet"....or something along those lines? Just bashing SUV's and their owners accomplishes nothing and sounds like so much class envy. I don't see it just as an environmental thing, I personally see it almost more as a safety thing. I don't have as much of a problem with the sports cars that get 15 mpg as the SUKs that get 15 mpg. The SUK blocks the view of everyone behind them, and anticipation is a big part of driving. If you fall back far enough so you're at a safe distance, you're about 10 car lengths back, and people (chances are it'll be another SUK) will pull in front of you. Also, they outweigh me 2 to 1. The extra mass makes it much harder for them to stop or handle well at all to avoid an accident. I don't see how that can be considered "safe". Sure, they're environmental catastrophies, but I consider the safety issue more relavent to me. Thus the reasons I don't like (large) SUKs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted April 24, 2003 Share Posted April 24, 2003 what ursa said but also because the environment is more than just clean air and fossil fuels (i am surprised this has to be said on a climbing board). mass marketing of suv's, atv' s, etc ... attempts to legitimize driving over every single piece of dirt and grass with knobbies. in other words, although most suv's are not used off roads, their mass marketing results in more indiscriminate off road use as an end in itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.