Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

  • Thread starter Dianelos Georgoudis
  • Start date
This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
In article <[email protected]>, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
>> Brent P wrote:

>> > What if the means of creation is evolution? Throws the monkey into
>> > the wrench now doesn't it :)

> "Throws the monkey into the wrench?" Never mind, I know what you
> meant.

It's a purposeful warpage of the old saying 'throws a monkey wrench
into the works'. A former co-worker came up with that, I've used it since
because I think it's much funnier ;)

 

"Aardwolf" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> rnf2 wrote:
>
> > Besides which I think the Spacegear is available in LHD in some
countries.
> > you could possibly import a few for personal use under grey import
rules.
>
> Unfortunately there are no more grey import rules. You can import a
vehicle as
> is for testing, but have to export or destroy it after two years. You can
bring
> in a vehicle as is, if you can persuade the DOT that it is of "unique
technical
> or historical interest" but can only drive it 2500 miles a year and can't
resell
> it. Or you can import any vehicle as is that is over 25 years old with no
> restrictions.
>
> --Aardwolf.
>
Stupid.
should be able to import anything that is not currently imported by a
manufacturor.

rhys


 

"Brent P" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:8Inmb.9553$mZ5.58279@attbi_s54...
> In article <[email protected]>, Douglas A. Shrader wrote:
>
> >> What journals do YOU read Lloyd?
>
> > I've asked you this before Lloyd, and you've never answered. You claim
to be
> > a hotshot scientist, what peer reviewed scientific journals do you read?
>
> I can say one thing, when I did a search a few years back for the hell
> of it, nothing had ever been published in a Journal that was written
> by Parker.
>
> While I didn't get author credit, at least one of the projects I worked
> on got into a journal. And I do have a patent, a design one, but a patent
> none the less. What about you parker? You've got decades of head start
> on me......
>
>
I didn't get credit, but I got in a book written by a lecturer here at Uni,
we were having a debate and one of my remarks in refuting the opposing
arguement made the lecturer go all thoughtful and she asked after class if
she could quote me in the textbook on the subject she was writing.

rhys


 


rnf2 wrote:

> Stupid.
> should be able to import anything that is not currently imported by a
> manufacturor.

Or anything that meets ECE specs, but hey, this is the Land of the Free we're
talking about. Can't have that!

--Aardwolf.

 
Douglas A. Shrader wrote:
> "The Ancient One" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>In article <bfSlb.3517$275.9363@attbi_s53>,
>>> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Tell me, do YOU keep up with the scientific literature?
>>>>
>>>>I can tell you don't, even on a cursory level.
>>>
>>>So which journals do you read? What area of science is your graduate
>>
>>degree
>>
>>>in?
>>
>>What journals do YOU read Lloyd?
>>
>
>
> I've asked you this before Lloyd, and you've never answered. You claim to be
> a hotshot scientist, what peer reviewed scientific journals do you read?
>
>

Even more important, in what journals has he been published.

Matt

 
Brent P wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>
>>Brent P wrote:
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Brent P wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article <[email protected]>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Brent P wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article <[email protected]>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I agree. Saying we don't know for sure is accurate. Saying evolution
>>>>>>>>is based on fact and creation is not based on fact, is simply not
>>>>>>>>accurate. The only honest answer is that we don't know the complete
>>>>>>>>answer and likely never will. Lloyd, and others who claim to be
>>>>>>>>scientists, are incorrect at best, and disingenuous at worst, when they
>>>>>>>>claim that evolution is fact based.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Evolution is based in facts, evidence. It's an explanation based upon
>>>>>>>the evidence, the facts. It still could be incorrect, but it is based
>>>>>>>in fact.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Sorry, but I believe that facts are things that are correct, not incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>It's a fact that there are shared traits and genetics between species.
>>>>>It's a fact that if left in isolation from each other in different
>>>>>environments critters of the same species over time will become
>>>>>different. Even a simple study of dog breeding shows this is true.
>>>>>These things are facts. Evolution is an explaination based on these
>>>>>facts and others.
>>>>
>>>>Evolution as an explanation for variations is a lot different than
>>>>evolution as an explanation for creation of something from nothing. I
>>>>don't think anyone argues that species haven't changed over time ... get
>>>>taller, heavier, etc.
>>>
>>>
>>>Evolution is not about how life started. Only how life got from A to B.
>>
>>Really? That isn't how the theory is commonly applied. What
>>field/theory deals with the origin of the species then? If you ask most
>>people what the scientific alternative to creation is, they will say
>>evolution. Creation deals with the creation of humans and all other
>>species from scratch. If evolution doesn't include this, then it really
>>isn't an alternative as is commonly claimed.
>
>
> Evolution is just that, evolution, from one thing to another. It does
> not state how life first got started, it only tries to explain what
> occured once it did. How that first one celled organism, what is thought
> of as the starting point for evolution started is unknown. Evolution
> starts only after life exists. Origin of species, refering to darwin
> I suppose, is about how life gets from one form to another.
>
>
>>>>And over how much time have you observed critters left in isolation?
>>>>And how much did they change? Did they become completely different
>>>>species? Did a dog evolve into a car? Random combinations of elements
>>>>should allow this to happen, right?
>>>
>
>
>>>If you want to play stupid, stick with Dr. Parker.
>>>I don't think the researchers who've worked with worms, mice, and other
>>>critters that can be bred on time scales that allow humans to witness
>>>the changes are lying. Nor do I think dog breeders and farmers are lying
>>>when they specifically breed plants and animals for desirable traits.
>>
>
>
>>Not a question of lying necessarily, but often a question of
>>interpretation of the "facts" with a bias in place. Read this for a
>>good description of this phenomena which, as the author admits, affects
>>both creationists and evolutionists.
>>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4179.asp
>
>
> That's nice piece of faith work. I've seen people write with more
> conviction about how the US government is league with the greys.
>
> The bible is simply a collection of stories most with a historical
> basis, many of just belief. Practically all with some sort of theme
> about how to lead a good life. It too has evolved throughout time.
>
>
>>However, even scientists have been know to lie and falsify results.
>>There are many document instances of this, one just a year or two ago at
>>Bell Labs/Lucent.
>
>
> Yet still we have plants like brocolli.(sp?)
>
>
>>>We know from the fossil record that many of the creatures common place
>>>today simply did not exist in anything like their present form if at
>>>all millions of years ago. However step by step the fossil record allows
>>>pieces of how to get from A to B put together.
>>
>
>
>>But the fossil record is subject to interpretation and errors in
>>analysis, dating, etc. Check out these links if you'd like to see just
>>some of the issues.
>>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp
>>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp
>
>
> I see alot of denials and trying to claim that there is no way to date
> fossils. It is pure idiotcy to claim the earth is 6000 years old.
>
> Here's where it goes wrong:
> "UPHOLDING THE AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE FROM THE VERY FIRST VERSE"
>
> That's the first line. We know that this is an extremely biased
> source that is setting out make everything fit the bible, it is
> not objective.
>
> I especially like how they try to explain away the dinosaurs. That
> they lived 6000 years ago. There are acient monuments built to star
> alignments older than that. (The pyramids of giza for one) There is
> alot of real evidence that civilization (and the knowledge/technology)
> is far older than established science claims, older than your
> creationists claim the dinosaurs are.
>
> For instance the kind of real evidence I speak of are things like star
> alignments of various acient monuments around the world. Monuments that
> go under water, on ground that hasn't been dry land since the last
> ice age, etc and so forth. Come up with hard stuff like that for
> creation. Not just the bible says so, so it is.

All of the above depends on an accurate means of dating things that
occurred before any of us were around, and that simply doesn't exist.
And there is no way to calibrate accurately or prove it anyway.


Matt

 

"Joe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "comfortable" is relative. The Subarus are built for "average" males
(5'9"
> give or take). Some people are unnaturally large and need a bigger
vehicle
> to feel comfortable.

Oh, well I'm 5'10" with disproportionately long legs. I wouldn't be
comfortable in most cars unless someone 6'2" would be comfortable in them.
Still, I don't consider myself (or guys 6' and over, for that matter) to be
unnaturally large. There are many car buyers who are not 5'9". -Dave


 
In article <[email protected]>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:

>> I especially like how they try to explain away the dinosaurs. That
>> they lived 6000 years ago. There are acient monuments built to star
>> alignments older than that. (The pyramids of giza for one) There is
>> alot of real evidence that civilization (and the knowledge/technology)
>> is far older than established science claims, older than your
>> creationists claim the dinosaurs are.
>>
>> For instance the kind of real evidence I speak of are things like star
>> alignments of various acient monuments around the world. Monuments that
>> go under water, on ground that hasn't been dry land since the last
>> ice age, etc and so forth. Come up with hard stuff like that for
>> creation. Not just the bible says so, so it is.
>
> All of the above depends on an accurate means of dating things that
> occurred before any of us were around, and that simply doesn't exist.
> And there is no way to calibrate accurately or prove it anyway.

It's very easy to get an accurate rate. By measuring the precession (sp?)
of stars now we can tell how they appeared thousands of years ago.
Some acient cultures appear to have been able to make these calculations
as well. The same goes for layers of ice, tree rings, soil depth, etc
etc etc...


 
call yourself "above average"... makes it sound better...

"Dave C." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Joe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "comfortable" is relative. The Subarus are built for "average" males
> (5'9"
> > give or take). Some people are unnaturally large and need a bigger
> vehicle
> > to feel comfortable.
>
> Oh, well I'm 5'10" with disproportionately long legs. I wouldn't be
> comfortable in most cars unless someone 6'2" would be comfortable in them.
> Still, I don't consider myself (or guys 6' and over, for that matter) to
be
> unnaturally large. There are many car buyers who are not 5'9". -Dave
>
>


 
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
> And what if the means of evolution was intelligent design through
> creation? :)

Then I have a whole rack of bones to pick with the designer; he appears
so incompetent that even Bechtel wouldn't hire him.
 
Brent P wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>
>
>>>I especially like how they try to explain away the dinosaurs. That
>>>they lived 6000 years ago. There are acient monuments built to star
>>>alignments older than that. (The pyramids of giza for one) There is
>>>alot of real evidence that civilization (and the knowledge/technology)
>>>is far older than established science claims, older than your
>>>creationists claim the dinosaurs are.
>>>
>>>For instance the kind of real evidence I speak of are things like star
>>>alignments of various acient monuments around the world. Monuments that
>>>go under water, on ground that hasn't been dry land since the last
>>>ice age, etc and so forth. Come up with hard stuff like that for
>>>creation. Not just the bible says so, so it is.
>>
>>All of the above depends on an accurate means of dating things that
>>occurred before any of us were around, and that simply doesn't exist.
>>And there is no way to calibrate accurately or prove it anyway.
>
>
> It's very easy to get an accurate rate. By measuring the precession (sp?)
> of stars now we can tell how they appeared thousands of years ago.
> Some acient cultures appear to have been able to make these calculations
> as well. The same goes for layers of ice, tree rings, soil depth, etc
> etc etc...
>
>

The key word is "appear." It is extremely unlikely that we will ever
know "for sure" what happened years ago. We can look at lots of
circumstantial evidence and try to draw logical conclusions, but the
reality is that we'll simply never know with certainty and some
scientists just seem unable to accept that. So, they claim certainty
about things that simply aren't and lose credibility.

Matt

 
John David Galt wrote:
> "Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
>
>>And what if the means of evolution was intelligent design through
>>creation? :)
>
>
> Then I have a whole rack of bones to pick with the designer; he appears
> so incompetent that even Bechtel wouldn't hire him.

In your case that may well be true. Blame in on evolution since the
original design was created. Scope creep and field changes are common
problems and tend to ruin many elegant designs. :)


Matt

 
Approximately 10/25/03 12:40, Matthew S. Whiting uttered for posterity:

> John David Galt wrote:
>> "Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
>>
>>>And what if the means of evolution was intelligent design through
>>>creation? :)
>>
>>
>> Then I have a whole rack of bones to pick with the designer; he appears
>> so incompetent that even Bechtel wouldn't hire him.
>
> In your case that may well be true. Blame in on evolution since the
> original design was created. Scope creep and field changes are common
> problems and tend to ruin many elegant designs. :)

I'm fairly sure that *you* were being proposed as the ISO 9001
quality dropout from your allegedly intelligent designer.


--
My governor can kick your governor's ass

 
Lon Stowell wrote:
> Approximately 10/25/03 12:40, Matthew S. Whiting uttered for posterity:
>
>
>>John David Galt wrote:
>>
>>>"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>And what if the means of evolution was intelligent design through
>>>>creation? :)
>>>
>>>
>>>Then I have a whole rack of bones to pick with the designer; he appears
>>>so incompetent that even Bechtel wouldn't hire him.
>>
>>In your case that may well be true. Blame in on evolution since the
>>original design was created. Scope creep and field changes are common
>>problems and tend to ruin many elegant designs. :)
>
>
> I'm fairly sure that *you* were being proposed as the ISO 9001
> quality dropout from your allegedly intelligent designer.

Keep evolving, maybe some day you'll come up with a good retort.

Matt

 
In article <[email protected]>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>I especially like how they try to explain away the dinosaurs. That
>>>>they lived 6000 years ago. There are acient monuments built to star
>>>>alignments older than that. (The pyramids of giza for one) There is
>>>>alot of real evidence that civilization (and the knowledge/technology)
>>>>is far older than established science claims, older than your
>>>>creationists claim the dinosaurs are.
>>>>
>>>>For instance the kind of real evidence I speak of are things like star
>>>>alignments of various acient monuments around the world. Monuments that
>>>>go under water, on ground that hasn't been dry land since the last
>>>>ice age, etc and so forth. Come up with hard stuff like that for
>>>>creation. Not just the bible says so, so it is.
>>>
>>>All of the above depends on an accurate means of dating things that
>>>occurred before any of us were around, and that simply doesn't exist.
>>>And there is no way to calibrate accurately or prove it anyway.
>>
>>
>> It's very easy to get an accurate rate. By measuring the precession (sp?)
>> of stars now we can tell how they appeared thousands of years ago.
>> Some acient cultures appear to have been able to make these calculations
>> as well. The same goes for layers of ice, tree rings, soil depth, etc
>> etc etc...
>>
>>
>
> The key word is "appear." It is extremely unlikely that we will ever
> know "for sure" what happened years ago. We can look at lots of
> circumstantial evidence and try to draw logical conclusions, but the
> reality is that we'll simply never know with certainty and some
> scientists just seem unable to accept that. So, they claim certainty
> about things that simply aren't and lose credibility.

It's very clear that discussion with you absolutely pointless. Now that
you take appear out of context. If you want to live in the 12th century
fine, I don't.

The reality is alot is *KNOWN* with a great deal of certainity. You just
refuse to accept it because it doesn't match with your reading of a book
of faith. What would you call someone who held up some book by L.Ron
Hubbard and refused to believe anything that wasn't in it?


 

"rickety" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> FDRanger92 wrote:
> > "Bill Funk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 09:28:42 -0400, "rickety"
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Kevin wrote:
> >>>> RJ wrote:
> >>>>> Nate Nagel <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> RJ wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Nate Nagel <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Remember the days when you could buy a wagon and expect to haul
> >>>>>>>> plywood and tow a trailer with it?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 1. No 4x4 (a factor wherever it snows)
> >>>>>>> 2. Those old beasts delivered around 12 mpg.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If you claim that point 2 is negated by modern technology,
> >>>>>>> everything I've seen with seriously higher gas mileage is front
> >>>>>>> wheel drive and is therefore worthless as a towing vehicle.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That's not the fault of "passenger cars" per se, it's the fault
> >>>>>> of CAFE which has killed the full sized car as we once knew it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The only true full size car left is the Crown Vic. Still rear
> >>>>> wheel
> >>>> dirve with steel frame. Big fan, and heavy enough to keep you
> >>>> alive.
> >>>
> >>> istr that the story is when they are hit from the rear the fuel
> >>> tank is prone to rupture and ignite the spillage. Kind of like a
> >>> big Pinto.
> >>
> >> They need to be hit pretty hard.
> >> Like at a closing speed of more that 40 mph, IIRC.
> >>
> >
> > More like 50-70. The ones thar have exploded have been hit at very
> > high speeds. Also when you hit cars that tend to have ammunition in
> > the trunk you might just get a fire.
>
> It's interesting, as your points are highly believable, but they don't
come
> up in the news programs. I would have thought that if ammunition was a
> contributing factor then Ford would have been highlighting that in public
> announcements.
>
> --
> Rickety
>
>

I kind of wonder about that myself. Every police officer I know has some
amount of ammunition and road flairs in the trunk. A hard enough impact on
the ammo can set it off, and considering the speeds at which the cars were
hit, I would think it could contribute to a fire. I really don't think any
car would hold up to the kind of impacts these things have had, and the
numbers are relatively low considering the age and number of cars on the
road.


 
All of the diesels have their own very special set of problems.... Difficult
to start in cold climates (my next truck will still be a SuperDuty diesel),
the need to be religious about servicing the air filter, the amount of
damage that can be caused by substandard fuel ( compared to a gas motor),
higher costs regarding scheduled maintenance, difficulty in finding service
outlets.... the list goes on.

I can't speak for the current crop of Land Cruiser.... if they still use an
indirect injection pump, these are fragile and are likely based on the old
RoosaMaster pump - expensive is a word I could use. If they use the newer
HEUI injector technology, specialized electronic test equipment is required
for much in the way of running problem diagnostics. I don't believe there
are any 'golden' solutions. I can't see diesel fuel being any cheaper in
Nova Scotia than here in oil country.

Still, it boils down to driving whatever floats our boats..... If it takes
an $80 fillup to keep my loving bride feeling safe and comfortable, then an
$80 fillup is what it shall be.Though I am a big proponent of minimizing
emissions, I will always view it "in context".


--
Jim Warman
[email protected]

"Chris Phillipo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> >
> >
> > Chris Phillipo wrote:
> >
> > > I assume you are talking about something like the Adventra. If they
can
> > > just avoid having the "SUV" moniker applied to it it will coast
> > > effortlessly under the greenie radar. Of course that thing would never
> > > sell in America if they called it a station wagon.
> >
> > How about a "sports tourer"?
> >
> > They've got a Monaro/GTO coupe version too, btw. To paraphrase another
poster, 0-60
> > in 6.4 seconds--on gravel!
> >
> > --Aardwolf.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Again these are great cars, just like many of the great cars that failed
> miserably in the US market. If I could get a nice efficient turbo
> diesel Land Cruiser here I'd be laughing very time I pulled up to a pump
> instead of crying.
> --
> ____________________
> Remove "X" from email address to reply.


 
If in the US the problem is also the availablity of diesel engines. Most are
petrol and of diesels, most are old tech kept over form older models.
Many good diesels are kept out for strange reasons. the very effective Isuzu
4jb1 2.8 TD was never used in US Isuzus, only the anemic C223 2.2L diesel
was offered, along with under powered 2.8L petrol GM V6. Theres similiar
stories with other brands, the good diesels were never released in the US.

rhys

"Jim Warman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:nNHmb.28346$EO3.26387@clgrps13...
> All of the diesels have their own very special set of problems....
Difficult
> to start in cold climates (my next truck will still be a SuperDuty
diesel),
> the need to be religious about servicing the air filter, the amount of
> damage that can be caused by substandard fuel ( compared to a gas motor),
> higher costs regarding scheduled maintenance, difficulty in finding
service
> outlets.... the list goes on.
>
> I can't speak for the current crop of Land Cruiser.... if they still use
an
> indirect injection pump, these are fragile and are likely based on the old
> RoosaMaster pump - expensive is a word I could use. If they use the newer
> HEUI injector technology, specialized electronic test equipment is
required
> for much in the way of running problem diagnostics. I don't believe there
> are any 'golden' solutions. I can't see diesel fuel being any cheaper in
> Nova Scotia than here in oil country.
>
> Still, it boils down to driving whatever floats our boats..... If it takes
> an $80 fillup to keep my loving bride feeling safe and comfortable, then
an
> $80 fillup is what it shall be.Though I am a big proponent of minimizing
> emissions, I will always view it "in context".
>
>
> --
> Jim Warman
> [email protected]
>
> "Chris Phillipo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> > >
> > >
> > > Chris Phillipo wrote:
> > >
> > > > I assume you are talking about something like the Adventra. If they
> can
> > > > just avoid having the "SUV" moniker applied to it it will coast
> > > > effortlessly under the greenie radar. Of course that thing would
never
> > > > sell in America if they called it a station wagon.
> > >
> > > How about a "sports tourer"?
> > >
> > > They've got a Monaro/GTO coupe version too, btw. To paraphrase
another
> poster, 0-60
> > > in 6.4 seconds--on gravel!
> > >
> > > --Aardwolf.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Again these are great cars, just like many of the great cars that failed
> > miserably in the US market. If I could get a nice efficient turbo
> > diesel Land Cruiser here I'd be laughing very time I pulled up to a pump
> > instead of crying.
> > --
> > ____________________
> > Remove "X" from email address to reply.
>
>


 
Cummins had the 600 horse KTA motor 'bout 20 years ago..... I tried out an
"opened up" silver 92 Detroit..... had the big injectors, a reworked turbo
and governed about 2800 or 3000. With the RTO12513 and a brownie behind
that, two shifts on an empty 5 axle would have you doing 70mph.... I was too
friggin' sane to try 8th over in the main and OD in the brownie at the same
time...

That Benz looks like a bit of a pussy....


--
Jim Warman
[email protected]

"Dori Schmetterling" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Big? Heavy?
>
> You mean it's in the same class as one of these?
> http://www.mercedes-benz.com/com/e/home/products/trucks/actros/index.html
>
> I never fail to be amused by what Americans call "trucks".
>
> :)
> DAS
> --
> ---
> NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
> ---
> "Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> .........................................>
> > I agree. I've driven a loaner ML320, and while it handled and drove
> fairly
> > pleasantly, you never forgot it was a big, heavy, high-cg truck.
>
>


 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Defenders Vs Insurers tomfoolery
Replies
1
Views
4K
lightning
lightning
300bhp/ton
Driven: New Defender - On & Off Road. Is it a Pretender?
2 3
Replies
50
Views
9K
Squonker
S
P
Range Rover P38 EKA and BeCM Lockout
Replies
6
Views
5K
Doolinjames
D
natas
Hurricane Dorian survivor.
Replies
8
Views
2K
ProjectX
ProjectX
Alibro
How to recondition a VCU yourself.
15 16 17
Replies
325
Views
54K
Alibro
Alibro
Back
Top