jim785 wrote:
wrote:
On May 27, 7:13 pm, "Don White" wrote:
"John H" wrote in message

...
snip

I mentioned the RAV4 to my younger daughter. She wouldn't think of
owning one. Her comment, "Dad, that's a *pansy* car!"
I just thought I'd share that with you.
snip
John H
That's really too bad and an indicator of why the American Auto
Industry is
in such bad shape.
You should be more responsible in providing fatherly advice.
What do you think a US gallon of gas will cost in a couple of years
after
the recovery?

Fatherly advice? She's an adult, and unlike your adult son, is on her
own, and can make her own decisions. Do you think John should force
her to like something she doesn't like?

Did you know that the RAV 4 has 10, count em 10, beverage holders. I'm
sure that swayed Donny's buying decision. Also the V6 version can tow
3500 lbs when properly equipped. Sadly the 4 cyl. version can tow only a
lightly loaded Radio Flyer. Donny did opt for the 6 cyl, I trust.

Nope. Out of his price range.

HK wrote:
Richard Casady wrote:
On Thu, 28 May 2009 04:57:11 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

I like the RAV4. Typically Toyota - well-designed, nicely assembled,
Toyota reliability.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Like you are now a car expert?? Oh, the narcissism! Funny, you're too
stupid to know how stupid you're acting!

The Toyota landcruiser a friend bought in 1970 came with a starting
crank. That is reliable. Starts unaided with a dead battery. A feature
that should be common.

Casady

We have a 2004 4Runner with the V8. More than 110,000 miles. Most
reliable car we have ever owned. No expenditures but for routine
service, expendables, a set of tires, brake pads, and a battery. Nothing
has broken or fallen off. Starts every time, no matter the weather.
That's a major reason why I'm looking at a Lexus and the top of the line
Toyota sedan. I think the Japanese some time ago passed the Germans as
builders of the top-quality cars.

That sedan should serve as a fine tow vehicle.

Don White wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
news
"Don White" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
m...
But . . . . pink?

Why are you 'irregulars' so caught up on pink...I'd have thought the
'rainbow colours' would be your choice.
Mine is Pyrite Mica...an earthy, manly colour.

Cause any self respecting car will not be PINK! Maybe an elephant during
a drinking bout, or a dolphin in the Amazon. But not a car.


Well, you'd better give up your night-time job flogging 'Mary K' products.
You just might win one of those pink Cadillacs and make JohnnyPrepH as
jealous as 'ell!



Dumb.

wrote:
On May 28, 9:38 am, jim785 wrote:
HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...
What are you driving these days, ****-for-brains? A '91 Ford station
wagon?
What's the matter with a '91 Ford wagon? They were great cars,
especially the mid 80's and up models. 1991 was the last year they
were produced and you still see many on the road, even up here in salt
laden MA. They have strong frames, are multi-purposed, make great
tow vehicles and ride nicely. They are one of Ford's success stories
and if I had a late 80's or '90-'91 in good shape, I'd probably hold
onto it.
Eisboch
Nothing wrong with it, unless you are making ****ty remarks about a new
Toyota. The Ford is not a car I would own, but that's what once made
America a great place...diversity of opinion.
Hold onto that last thought. Coming from you, it's a gem.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Makes you wonder why just preceeding this tidbit, that every time
someone disagrees with Harry he starts his third grade like name
calling and childish insults, huh?

And then...in an admission of defeat...invokes the bogus "killfile" to
avoid further embarrassment!

"John H" wrote in message
...

I 'spect you're kinda cute running around in that thing. Get hit on
much? What kind of flowers have you got on the dashboard?
--

John H


Please stop it Johnny...I'm not 'your type'!
You're only embarassing yourself.

On Thu, 28 May 2009 19:58:14 -0400, D K
wrote:

Wow! That 179 HP is just a bit more than half of the 350 HP in my SUV
and the torque is less than half.

What a (chick) machine!

You aren't going to try to tow with that, right?

I think the Navigator is rated at 5500. It has 330 cu in and 300 hp. I
have a one ton boat and no trailer brakes. The heft it has is more
than handy. We tried to pull it behind a Ranger and it didn't like to
stop.

I have a 94 horse Mercedes that is rated at 150 tons,
300 if you connect the brakes on the railcars. Whatever

Casady

Richard Casady wrote:
On Thu, 28 May 2009 19:58:14 -0400, D K
wrote:

Wow! That 179 HP is just a bit more than half of the 350 HP in my SUV
and the torque is less than half.

What a (chick) machine!

You aren't going to try to tow with that, right?

I think the Navigator is rated at 5500. It has 330 cu in and 300 hp. I
have a one ton boat and no trailer brakes. The heft it has is more
than handy. We tried to pull it behind a Ranger and it didn't like to
stop.

I have a 94 horse Mercedes that is rated at 150 tons,
300 if you connect the brakes on the railcars. Whatever

Casady


Are we supposed to be impressed that Dickqueless Krueger has an SUV with
twice the horsepower of someone else's SUV? Wow...that sure does it for
me, but it doesn't change the indisputable fact that Krueger is snarky,
worthless piece of ****, and worthy only of being filtered out of usenet.

I successfully towed a boat the size and weight of Krueger's behind a V6
Ranger without problems. You don't need a 350 hp SUV to tow a 19-foot boat.

"Richard Casady" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 May 2009 19:58:14 -0400, D K
wrote:

Wow! That 179 HP is just a bit more than half of the 350 HP in my SUV
and the torque is less than half.

What a (chick) machine!

You aren't going to try to tow with that, right?

I think the Navigator is rated at 5500. It has 330 cu in and 300 hp. I
have a one ton boat and no trailer brakes. The heft it has is more
than handy. We tried to pull it behind a Ranger and it didn't like to
stop.


Probably depends on the year. I was surprised that my wife's Navigator is
"rated" to tow 7400 lbs.
Don't think I'd want to though. A Navigator is basically a softly sprung
F-150.

Eisboch

HK wrote:
Richard Casady wrote:
On Thu, 28 May 2009 19:58:14 -0400, D K
wrote:

Wow! That 179 HP is just a bit more than half of the 350 HP in my
SUV and the torque is less than half.

What a (chick) machine!

You aren't going to try to tow with that, right?

I think the Navigator is rated at 5500. It has 330 cu in and 300 hp. I
have a one ton boat and no trailer brakes. The heft it has is more
than handy. We tried to pull it behind a Ranger and it didn't like to
stop.
I have a 94 horse Mercedes that is rated at 150 tons,
300 if you connect the brakes on the railcars. Whatever

Casady


Are we supposed to be impressed that Dickqueless Krueger has an SUV with
twice the horsepower of someone else's SUV? Wow...that sure does it for
me, but it doesn't change the indisputable fact that Krueger is snarky,
worthless piece of ****, and worthy only of being filtered out of usenet.

I successfully towed a boat the size and weight of Krueger's behind a V6
Ranger without problems. You don't need a 350 hp SUV to tow a 19-foot boat.

Of course you don't. My 22HP lawn tractor could pull your Parker.
Wheelbase, weight, frame, strength, and brakes are the key issues when
selecting a tow vehicle. ALL SUVs are terrible tow vehicles. My wife's,
chic car CRV, on the other hand is an excellent towed vehicle. The
petrol per KM we get on it is astounding.

"HK" wrote in message
m...
Richard Casady wrote:
On Thu, 28 May 2009 19:58:14 -0400, D K
wrote:

Wow! That 179 HP is just a bit more than half of the 350 HP in my SUV
and the torque is less than half.

What a (chick) machine!

You aren't going to try to tow with that, right?

I think the Navigator is rated at 5500. It has 330 cu in and 300 hp. I
have a one ton boat and no trailer brakes. The heft it has is more
than handy. We tried to pull it behind a Ranger and it didn't like to
stop. I have a 94 horse Mercedes that is rated at 150 tons,
300 if you connect the brakes on the railcars. Whatever
Casady


Are we supposed to be impressed that Dickqueless Krueger has an SUV with
twice the horsepower of someone else's SUV? Wow...that sure does it for
me, but it doesn't change the indisputable fact that Krueger is snarky,
worthless piece of ****, and worthy only of being filtered out of usenet.

I successfully towed a boat the size and weight of Krueger's behind a V6
Ranger without problems. You don't need a 350 hp SUV to tow a 19-foot
boat.

Engine size is a secondary consideration when towing IMO. A Ranger 4
cylinder will tow if you use the appropriate gears. Weight and suspension
of the tow vehicle is far more important. A Ranger may be fine for short
range towing of 2 or 3 thousand lbs, but I'd never attempt long range,
highway speed trips. They just aren't made for it. The last Ranger I had
was the "beefed up" Level Two version that had a heavier duty suspension
and tow package. It was rated for about 6,000 lbs, IIRC. It still was not
a safe truck for highway towing purposes, even with a light trailer and
load, which is why I traded it in for a F-250. Huge difference. Funny
thing is, the V6 Ranger only got about 3-4 mpg better gas mileage than the
F-250 achieves.

I may be a bit picky, but I've done quite a bit of long range towing over
the past 5 or 6 years. Learned my lesson. For example, the little
Sprinter RV with a 154hp diesel tows up to 5000 lbs effortlessly and it's
handling is virtually unaffected by the weight of the trailer.

Eisboch