[narlus]

from today's strip:

 

[MudGrrl]

can i get it in Red?

 

[douglas]

did you crop off the funny part?

 

[narlus]

did you crop off the funny part?

it was in the next panel; when BrianHCM climbed up the ladder to get into the vehicle, you could see up his skirt.

 

[Ciaran]

it was in the next panel; when BrianHCM climbed up the ladder to get into the vehicle, you could see up his skirt.

Hahahaha. Now, that's funny!

The "Envirocrusher"! Love it.

 

[Zark]

Canyonero!

 

[=[Stinky]=]

ahhhh Dilbert. I love my SUV. Wouldnt have it any other way.

 

[dh girlie]

it was in the next panel; when BrianHCM climbed up the ladder to get into the vehicle, you could see up his skirt.

HAHAHA! damn...

 

[flydi007]

yeah but can you get it lifted a few inches?

 

[JRB]

Poor Brian is Narlus' bitch now.

 

[syadasti]

On a serious note...how come people never pick on people who own sports cars? They are equally bad for the environment with the amount of gas they use, less practical (can't carry anything, for people with mid-life crisis/small packages/racer boys/etc), and more likely to be driven at high/dangerous rates of speed. Probably the only good thing about them is they are generally are lighter than SUVs if you get hit by one but that might not make a difference if they are going much faster...

 

[Ridemonkey]

On a serious note...how come people never pick on people who own sports cars? They are equally bad for the environment with the amount of gas they use, less practical (can't carry anything, for people with mid-life crisis/small packages/racer boys/etc), and more likely to be driven at high/dangerous rates of speed. Probably the only good thing about them is they are generally are lighter than SUVs if you get hit by one but that might not make a difference if they are going much faster...

Because a realative handful of people own sports cars compared to image utility vehicles. I would think this is obvious.

 

[punkassean]

I just read that in the paper at lunch and got a kick out of it.

 

[syadasti]

Because a realative handful of people own sports cars compared to image utility vehicles. I would think this is obvious.

But thats not really true. Sports/Performance cars are still very popular. Car companies sell a lot more cars with V8s, turbocharged engines, people modifying their cars (100s of annoying shows on TV about that), etc...compared to a decade ago. I read somewhere overall, mpg for the average modern car has dropped to the same levels we had in the 50s or 60s with SUVs and the general trend of upsize in all cars (not just SUVs) - both in size/weight and engine power.

 

[Zark]

Most modern sporty cars get pretty good gas mileage. RSX's, WRX kinda cars are usually in the mid 20's. Only mini SUV's can compete with those numbers.

I bet even really riced out cars get better mpg than a Suburban.

 

[syadasti]

Here is one of them:

WASHINGTON -- Cars and trucks are gaining weight and burning more fuel.

New cars and trucks sold in the United States last year averaged 24.4 mpg in fuel consumption, the lowest figure since 1980.

...

The EPA, in a separate report, said auto manufacturers are steadily improving engine efficiency. But they are using the improvements to increase vehicle power, performance and weight. Consequently, vehicle fuel economy stays about the same or declines.

According to the EPA, 2001 cars and trucks weighed an average of 3,909 pounds, up 53 pounds from the year before and up 708 pounds from 1982.

Manufacturers long have argued that it is difficult to improve fuel economy when regulations force them to add airbags, door beams and other weighty safety devices. But industry observers note that automakers are eager to add highly marketable but weighty features such as big tires.

Here are two examples of weight gain:

The 2001 Toyota Camry XLE V-6 weighed 3,230 pounds. The 2003 model weighs 3,362.

The 2000 Ford Explorer four-door V-6 weighed 3,845. The 2003 weighs 4,286.

And another

No Such Thing: When it comes to horsepower, how high is up?
We put the question to folks at the top

Not since the muscle car era in the late ’60s and early ’70s has the phrase Horsepower Wars carried so much currency. When the Mustang GT showed up in 1987 with 225 hp, the enthusiast world went gaga over its affordable grunt, greeting it as the end of a purgatory on power that dated back to the oil crises of the ’70s.

Today 225 hp comes in ordinary family sedans, so it’s hard to remember that less than 20 years ago a BMW M5 made 285 hp. A bottomless bank account 15 years ago would buy you only a little better than twice that Mustang’s power: 450 hp in the Porsche 959 or 478 hp in the Ferrari F40. The ZR-1 “King of the Hill” boasted 405 hp and had a valet key to restrict output to 250 hp, lest anyone get hurt.

Now 400 hp is your base Corvette or Mustang Cobra, you can have 425 hp in a family sedan Chrysler 300C SRT-8, and a 959/F40-whomping 500 hp isn’t hard to find. It takes 550 hp to make the list of the 10 most powerful cars sold in America (the base Maybach is a bottom feeder at 543). The numbers are so giddy-making, folks lose perspective. Amid the array of 605-hp Porsche Carrera GTs, 580-hp Lamborghinis and 604-hp Mercedes AMG products at the Detroit show, we heard a car buff complain Aston Martin was offering only 450 hp in its DB9. “Only”?

If you ask a racer or a street tuner, they’ll tell you there is no such thing as too much horsepower. But the street is not a racetrack and the escalation of power ratings at least raises the question: How far will it go? Certainly critics of the automobile are asking it. So we took it to the top, asking industry movers and shakers, “How high is up?”

 

[syadasti]

Most modern sporty cars get pretty good gas mileage. RSX's, WRX kinda cars are usually in the mid 20's. Only mini SUV's can compete with those numbers.

I bet even really riced out cars get better mpg than a Suburban.

You would have to compare apples to apples. If you want to compare one of the larger SUVs, compare it to one of the larger sportcars like a Viper.

The form factor of the vehicle is only part of the equation, for example comparing two automatic vehicles with about the same performance numbers - a Subaru Forester XT Auto (2.5L turbo charged wagon) gets 19/23 mpg and requires premium fuel (a requirement of almost all turbo charged engines) which means more wasted energy in the refining process. A small suv like a Saturn Vue with a 3.5 L V6 AWD gets 19/25mpg on regular gas with about the same performance numbers and more room - thats the same or better mileage than any automatic turbocharged vehicle Subaru makes and it does it on regular.

 

[Zark]

You would have to compare apples to apples. If you want to compare one of the larger SUVs, compare it to one of the larger sportcars like a Viper.

But the volume sold and price don't support that kind of comparison. I figured I'd stick to cars in the sub $75,000 area

I'm just saying the average sporty car is putting out a lot less crap and getting beter mileage than the average SUV.

 

[me89]

yeh but dude your leaving one thing out about the fuel grades. the higher grade the fuel the cleaner it burns. unleaded regular octane doesnt burn as clean as 97 high octane fuel so its better on the environment. yeh you have wasted energy but energy can be remade and compensated for the ozone layer cant. .

but i got a solution to all these problems though. RIDE YOUR BIKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[syadasti]

yeh but dude your leaving one thing out about the fuel grades. the higher grade the fuel the cleaner it burns. unleaded regular octane doesnt burn as clean as 97 high octane fuel so its better on the environment. yeh you have wasted energy but energy can be remade and compensated for the ozone layer cant. .

but i got a solution to all these problems though. RIDE YOUR BIKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Actually, according to the EPA the Subaru still puts out 1/3 tons more CO2 per year than that Saturn and the Forester is only a low emissions vehicle (LEV) while the Saturn is a ultra low emissions vehicle, level 2 (ULEVII) - the Saturn beats it any way you look at it and yet its an SUV.

 

[narlus]

regardless of what subie calls it, the forester is an SUV.

and more likely to be driven at high/dangerous rates of speed.

at least the sports car is designed to go fast, and handle it. unlike most SUVs.

 

[syadasti]

at least the sports car is designed to go fast, and handle it. unlike most SUVs.

Which is just as useless if not more useless than a SUV to the public - plus its illegal for its designed purpose and not much cleaner if at all...

 

[Ridemonkey]

But thats not really true. Sports/Performance cars are still very popular. Car companies sell a lot more cars with V8s, turbocharged engines, people modifying their cars (100s of annoying shows on TV about that), etc...compared to a decade ago. I read somewhere overall, mpg for the average modern car has dropped to the same levels we had in the 50s or 60s with SUVs and the general trend of upsize in all cars (not just SUVs) - both in size/weight and engine power.

I agree that a lot more sports cars are being sold, but I think you will find that the numbers pale in comparison to the number of SUVs and trucks people are using as SUVs (the 4 door models) that are sold in this country.

 

[OGRipper]

On a serious note...how come people never pick on people who own sports cars? They are equally bad for the environment with the amount of gas they use, less practical (can't carry anything, for people with mid-life crisis/small packages/racer boys/etc), and more likely to be driven at high/dangerous rates of speed. Probably the only good thing about them is they are generally are lighter than SUVs if you get hit by one but that might not make a difference if they are going much faster...

Well, I make fun of goofy people in sports cars all the time, but like others have said environmentally speaking they should have less impact.

I drive a Cherokee. Regular car people say it's an SUV, monster truck people say it's not a real truck. I just laugh at all of them and go about my day.

 

[syadasti]

I agree that a lot more sports cars are being sold, but I think you will find that the numbers pale in comparison to the number of SUVs and trucks people are using as SUVs (the 4 door models) that are sold in this country.

Yes, but as the autoweek editor notes, an family sedan of today has the same HP sports car from less than 10 years ago and entry-level luxury cars match entry-level supercars like the M5 20 years ago:

When the Mustang GT showed up in 1987 with 225 hp, the enthusiast world went gaga over its affordable grunt, greeting it as the end of a purgatory on power that dated back to the oil crises of the ’70s.

Today 225 hp comes in ordinary family sedans, so it’s hard to remember that less than 20 years ago a BMW M5 made 285 hp.

The size, weight, and power of all cars are going up and isn't just the SUV people at fault - its everyone since they are the ones buying. The people in sportscars are an equally valid targets of excess/non-practical/unsafe vehicles.

 

[dhtahoe]

Actually, according to the EPA the Subaru still puts out 1/3 tons more CO2 per year than that Saturn and the Forester is only a low emissions vehicle (LEV) while the Saturn is a ultra low emissions vehicle, level 2 (ULEVII) - the Saturn beats it any way you look at it and yet its an SUV.

Yeah but THE FAD is not the Saturn... It's the big gas guzzleing single person driving SUV. Funny the point you made earlier about how you can't put enough in a small car. Yet you see people in small cars carpulling and SUVs with a single person in it(look around sometime it's VERY common). When people like this I just think WOW nice truck... sorry to hear about your penis.

PS I have a Subaru Wagon and I can get four bikes (2 DH 2 XC) INSIDE with all the gear I would ever need to go race for a week or two. And that's with out the hitch rack or roofbox.

 

[Toshi]

another point in favor of sports cars is that they abide to auto emissions regulations (vs. those for trucks, which are much more lenient). combine that with the lower CAFE requirements for trucks vs. cars and you see why we have 10-15 mpg beasts. compare to a a corvette that will get 25 on the freeway with its long 6th gear, not too shabby.

http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/light.html

 

[syadasti]

Yeah but THE FAD is not the Saturn... It's the big gas guzzleing single person driving SUV. Funny the point you made earlier about how you can't put enough in a small car. Yet you see people in small cars carpulling and SUVs with a single person in it(look around sometime it's VERY common). When people like this I just think WOW nice truck... sorry to hear about your penis.

Most sports cars are only 2 seats and have almost no trunk or they have 4 seats but only midgets could fit in the back. So you'd probably be just as likely to see some lone loser with a small penis in a sports car

 

[dhtahoe]

WRX,RSX, Celica, Honda Civics/Accord s all have four seats and just happen to be the most common sports cars these days. Don't see many folks rushing out to go buy a Miata... That's soooooo 90's

 

[syadasti]

WRX,RSX, Celica, Honda Civics/Accord s all have four seats and just happen to be the most common sports cars these days. Don't see many folks rushing out to go buy a Miata... That's soooooo 90's

Most of those are "sporty" cars not consider real sports cars and are not fast unless you modify them.

 

[mack]

compare to a a corvette that will get 25 on the freeway

Wow, 25!!!
our new so called 'ecopowered' saab only gets 23.5 on the highway.

 

[kinghami3]

But thats not really true. Sports/Performance cars are still very popular. Car companies sell a lot more cars with V8s, turbocharged engines, people modifying their cars (100s of annoying shows on TV about that), etc...compared to a decade ago. I read somewhere overall, mpg for the average modern car has dropped to the same levels we had in the 50s or 60s with SUVs and the general trend of upsize in all cars (not just SUVs) - both in size/weight and engine power.

Most sports cars are light, efficient cars that only guzzle gas while 'performing' (i.e. accelerating). SUVs guzzle gas no matter what they're doing.

 

[dhtahoe]

compare to a a corvette that will get 25 on the freeway with its long 6th gear, not too shabby.

With the very same 350 c.i. V-8 that is in most full size chevy trucks. You can't trick a power to weight ratio. Hell this guy has holes all over the place. To make 200 hp these days can be done with a 1.8-2.0 litre engine. 15-20 years ago it would have taken twice as much. Turbos burn cleaner than anything while making more HP. Intercoolers, Direct fuel injection, Computer controlled ignitions have made it very easy to make big horsepower without making more emmissions. Yet a chevy or ford V-8 has changed very little INTERNALLY since 1957. Hell even the injection on a current V-8 is crude by the industry standards. They have excessive crankcase blow-by, piston rings and pistons designed in WWII, and have simply had a fuel injection system slapped on them to pass the weak standards. Just plug in an SUV to a smog machine... the numbers DON"T lie. They produce WAY more... try triple.

 

[syadasti]

Wow, 25!!!
our new so called 'ecopowered' saab only gets 23.5 on the highway.

But a standard F-150 gets about the same mileage as the Mustang did combined (at least the old versions did, not familiar with the new version) and the big durango SUV as the viper. So they are both bad only the SUV has the more lax emissions standard.

Since you cannot legally use a sports car to their potential they are also a viable target of excess/wastefulness.

Not only that but as the automotive press says, even though the engines are getting more efficient, the cars are getting larger and heavier so fuel economy is equal or declining - its the lowest its been since the 1980s according to the government...

 

[dhtahoe]

Durango 318 cubic inch V-8 This means that it displaces 318 ci of fuel air mixture per revolution of the engine.
Viper is close to 600 ci V-10.... sorry got any more theories.

Mustang is a lead brick and as aerodynamic as a barn door... bad example.

And the Durango will be on the gas more to get it moving.

Power to weight... power to weight.

 

[syadasti]

Durango 318 cubic inch V-8 This means that it displaces 318 ci of fuel air mixture per revolution of the engine.
Viper is close to 600 ci V-10.... sorry got any more theories.

Mustang is a lead brick and as aerodynamic as a barn door... bad example.

And the Durango will be on the gas more to get it moving.

Power to weight... power to weight.

Sorry, do I have to spell it out for you? All wasteful vehicles is my point - nobody needs a giant vehicle or a very fast one that they don't or can't legally use (well maybe a law enforcement does but thats about it).

All of Chrysler main vehicles are moving to V8s, GM is doing a lot more V8s again, etc... Nobody needs those - the rest of the world gets along fine on smaller cars with smaller engines...

 

[dhtahoe]

I guess so.. because your past posts skirt that. Sorry that an auto mechanic shot you down so much that now you change the point.

 

[syadasti]

I guess so.. because your past posts skirt that. Sorry that an auto mechanic shot you down so much that now you change the point.

No, sport cars are still wasteful excessive vehicles like SUVs - doesn't change that fact...

Sorry you can't read, but my first post mentioned the reasons why sports cars are wasteful: they get worse gas mileage than normal vehicles, they are not practical, and they are used dangerously. Then my next post mentions the negative auto industry trends and my third a few articles as examples...