Join 3,363 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Ford to sell hybrid Escape SUV at a loss.
March 6, 2003 10:46 AM   Subscribe

Ford will sell hybrid Escape at a loss. In order to get technology out to the public, and get feedback from customers, Ford is going to release it's hybrid version of the Escape SUV, and take a loss with it.

With today's economy, who knows what that will mean in the end for an already struggling Ford.
posted by wondergirl (51 comments total)

 
My impression is that SUVs serve mostly as a public statement that their drivers don't give a fig about their gas mileage or emissions. So I'm not sure what the draw would be.
posted by goethean at 10:54 AM on March 6, 2003


Exactly. Am I missing something, or is this one of the stupidest ideas ever? How much overlap is there between SUV-owner-wannabes and hybrid-owner-wannabes?
posted by soyjoy at 10:55 AM on March 6, 2003


Maybe after this flops, they figure they can permamently label hybrids "poor market performers".
posted by goethean at 11:04 AM on March 6, 2003


I'd be much more willing to buy an SUV if it got good gas mileage. There are plenty of things I could use a big 4x4 for, but I find the low gas mileage of conventional SUVs a definite deal breaker. At 35-40 mpg, the hybrid Escape gets (slightly) better mileage than my current car, a two-door Sentra. That makes it a much more appealing option.
posted by mr_roboto at 11:05 AM on March 6, 2003


Taking a loss on fuel efficiency is not a surprise in the US. Due to the CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards, American manufacturers have to meet a certain average fuel efficiency. The strategy manufacturers have adopted is therefore to sell about 10, say, Ford Escorts, at a small loss but with a high fuel efficiency, and then recoup that money and more by selling an Expedition, with much lower efficiency, and still meet the required average.
What I'm still working on is how it'll work out for them to sell more SUVs at a loss, even if it is helping them by CAFE standards.
posted by whatzit at 11:06 AM on March 6, 2003


I think they're trying to show the concept works. They're betting that a hybrid version of a car that's actually attractive to a large number of people might prove popular. As for the tone of the post, they're not ready to shutter the plants just yet, hybrids or no.
posted by yerfatma at 11:06 AM on March 6, 2003


Well, as an SUV hater myself, I'm going to confess that I am patiently waiting for Honda to release the CR-V as a hybrid this year.

The CR-V is Honda's small SUV, built on the Civic chassis. It's a bit longer and wider than the Civic, but the same chassis - but only 20-25mpg. I have hopes for 35-45 (or at least 35-40 mpg) for the hybrid version.

My old Saturn gets about 28-35 mpg, so the hybrid would be an improvement.

So there is some crossover.

And goethean - hybrids are huge marketing successes. They can't keep them in the show room.
posted by Red58 at 11:06 AM on March 6, 2003


It might convince me to buy one. I'm looking to get rid of my present vehicle mostly because I don't feel right driving it. When I bought my jeep I used it as a jeep a lot, or on long trips where the cargo space was very useful. I don't give a fuck about making public statements, I care about getting a vehicle that does what I need. I don't have masturbatory pictures of my jeep, it's dinged and scratched from use but that's what I bought it for.

Now I don't do as many trips like that, so I was planning on getting something else soon. Buying a new vehicle would mean more expenses for me, I still do go on one or two longer trips per year, though usually a minivan would suffice. If the Escape doesn't suck then it would be an excellent compromise, I get the extra space when I need it, the traction when I need that and I get to use less fuel.

Not everybody is completely polarized on every issue. Most posters here come across as either complete tree huggers or environmental terrorists.
posted by substrate at 11:08 AM on March 6, 2003


Toyota had to take a loss on its Prius hybrids for several years. It's a way to get a foothold in the market place.
posted by stevefromsparks at 11:30 AM on March 6, 2003


great. But the Excursion still only gets 10 mpg.
posted by panopticon at 11:34 AM on March 6, 2003


So the only thing SUV owners care about is driving a 2 ton phallic symbol? Nice worldview.

Perhaps as some of you mature a little you'll come to enjoy the complexity of actual human beings, and grow tired of the cardboard representations you carry around so proudly now.

And for the record, yes, I drive an SUV, and no, I don't like the mileage I get. I'd be very interested in a hybrid SUV.
posted by luser at 11:35 AM on March 6, 2003


I'll bet the combined loss is far smaller than the advertising budget they don't have to spend because of all of the good publicity.
posted by woil at 11:42 AM on March 6, 2003


I don't like SUVs at all, but it's wrong to demonize their owners.

It's just possible that people buy SUVs because they actually suite their needs, not because they sit around at night rubbing their hands together Monty Burns-style plotting new ways to be evil. Try putting 3 kids in a Prius.

And the weight/volume penalty is much lower in a larger vehicle for the hybrid components, which would be a tight squeeze in a smaller vehicle - some of the first hybrid systems were tested on US Army Armored Personnel Carriers for that reason.

And finally, do the math - doubling the MPG for a low mileage vehicles provides much larger gains for society than doubling that of a high-mileage vehicle.

Specifically, going from 30 mpg to 60 mpg would save 200 gallons of fuel per year, based on a 12K driving year.

Going from 20 mpg to 40 mog saves 300 gallons per year.

That's better right?

OK, now back to the bashing ...
posted by Jos Bleau at 11:47 AM on March 6, 2003


The only real reason to hate SUVs is their gas mileage and the effects thereof on our economy and oil dependencies. Sure, you could argue about the size of the vehicle compensating for the owner's psychological problems, the apathetic tank mentality that SUV drivers develop, and all of those sorts of annoyances-- blah blah-- all that fun stuff, but it's the gas mileage that's the problem.

So to make an SUV that's fuel efficient is to mostly eliminate the whole problem. You can't really argue with Ford for trying. I think it's a great idea and I hope it succeeds.

[snarky] But of course, SUV drivers are still going to drive like assholes-- nothing Ford can do about that. [/snarky]
posted by xmutex at 11:53 AM on March 6, 2003


All I want is a hybrid hatchback that seats 4 people. It's the most practical layout going, and no one seems to make one.
posted by machaus at 11:54 AM on March 6, 2003


SUV or not, the more hybrids, the better, no matter the shape they come in.

What this really says is hybrids are becoming more mainstream, which is a good thing.

Anything that promotes innovative ways toward a conservation mindset is okay in my book. Maybe once hybrid cars become more prevalent, things like CF light bulbs and wind-generated power won't look so dorky.
posted by billder at 12:06 PM on March 6, 2003


The only real reason to hate SUVs is their gas mileage and the effects thereof on our economy and oil dependencies.

Wrong. Whether or not its driver is being an asshole, an SUV is less safe to drive behind than an ordinary car. There's no visibility. Additionally, an SUV is more prone to tipover and more dangerous to the other cars its inattentive driver may run into. Making an SUV a hybrid doesn't suddenly make it angelic.

luser, good to see you're one of the target demographic - or even that such a demographic exists. But we'll wait and see how large a group that is...
posted by soyjoy at 12:23 PM on March 6, 2003


This is a win/win situation for Ford. Think about it if it flops as some think:

Maybe after this flops, they figure they can permanently label hybrids "poor market performers".

Then at least Ford gets to look like the good guys for trying:

I'll bet the combined loss is far smaller than the advertising budget they don't have to spend because of all of the good publicity.

If it succeeds then Ford gets the Lion's share of the market and all the others have to play catch up, not to mention the heretofore mentioned good publicity. After all we shouldn't make generalizations:

I drive an SUV, and no, I don't like the mileage I get. I'd be very interested in a hybrid SUV.
posted by Pollomacho at 12:23 PM on March 6, 2003


And of course this has nothing to do with competing with the soon to be released Rav4 hybrid.
posted by ilsa at 12:24 PM on March 6, 2003


I'd agree with the statement more hybrids are good, no matter what form they come in. I just traded in a Toyota Tacoma pickup for a Matrix because the gas mileage on my 120-mile roundtrip commute to work was getting a little tough on the wallet. Had there been a Hybrid version of the Tacoma available with better gas mileage, I would have gone for it.

Oh, and the reason SUVs are "more dangerous" is people that drive them think they handle like their old Civic... you have to learn to drive and SUV, same as learning the difference between anti-lock and standard brakes.
posted by MediaMan at 12:42 PM on March 6, 2003


the reason SUVs are "more dangerous" is people that drive them think they handle like their old Civic

We'll there's that, plus the whole truck chassis that supports it is made for sports and utilities and not for hauling kids to the mall and on top of that there is the whole center of gravity/rollover deal!

The safest cars are long wheel base sedans, don't kid yourself that an SUV is safer because its big, its less so, just ask the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety!
posted by Pollomacho at 1:25 PM on March 6, 2003


Slightly OT, but I borrowed my father-in-law's Chevy Suburban last week for a couple days to haul supplies for home improvement and fell into the dual trap of having to spend shiteloads on gas and having to constantly supress the urge to drive like a total friggin' idiot and bully.
(And I usually drive a 25 mpg 87 chevy nova, i should know better!)
And now back to your rational discussion about the pros and cons of the Ford Escape hybrid...
posted by chandy72 at 1:29 PM on March 6, 2003


Am I missing something, or is this one of the stupidest ideas ever?

Anything that increases the number of hybrid engines being produced will help reduce the cost of building them. This will increase the number of people who buy them since they will no longer be paying a premium to own one.

Also, the Ford Escape is a pretty small vehicle. I would think that someone who wants to drive a SUV for its size/status/luxury would look for something larger and more expensive. The Ford Escape seems more similar to a RAV4 or a CRV which are pretty much like a Subaru Outback.
posted by jsonic at 1:30 PM on March 6, 2003


The only real reason to hate SUVs is their gas mileage and the effects thereof on our economy and oil dependencies. Sure, you could argue about the size of the vehicle compensating for the owner's psychological problems, the apathetic tank mentality that SUV drivers develop, and all of those sorts of annoyances-- blah blah-- all that fun stuff, but it's the gas mileage that's the problem.


What soyjoy said.

I don't demonize some SUV owners. Some folks have to haul big, heavy stuff around as part of their job. Fine.

But what really honks me off is when I can't find a parking spot at work because SUVs and trucks take up a spot and a half. I don't work at a construction site folks, it's a huge corporate headquarters, and I rarely see more than one person getting out of these monsters.

Not to mention their drivers are frequently inattentive, as am I sometimes. But I don't drive a machine capable of flattening my little Saturn in a heartbeat. They (the vehicles) are dangerous, inefficient, and annoying.
posted by tr33hggr at 1:30 PM on March 6, 2003


wow, can't anybody just say, "hey, that sounds like a step in the right direction."? If its going to be all or nothing, its more likely to be nothing.
posted by jbelshaw at 1:42 PM on March 6, 2003


The next hybrid from TMS (Toyota Motor Sales USA, Inc.) will be the RX300 hybrid. That's a great idea because it addresses the need for those who want something larger than the Prius and something with more luxury than the Prius, while still getting the benefit of the hybrid-electric system.
posted by gen at 1:44 PM on March 6, 2003


But what really honks me off is when I can't find a parking spot at work because SUVs and trucks take up a spot and a half...They (the vehicles) are dangerous, inefficient, and annoying.

A Ford Escape is shorter, less-wide, and depending on the trim level it is sometimes equal to the Toyota Camry in weight.

Be careful in judging all SUV's as the same. Some of the latest ones are smaller and weigh less than many full-size sedans.
posted by jsonic at 2:00 PM on March 6, 2003


Whether or not its driver is being an asshole, an SUV is less safe to drive behind than an ordinary car.

Which is the reason I'm in an SUV instead of one of those ordinary cars. There's an arms race on the road these days, and I'd rather have my family in one of these behemoths in case we're ever hit by another car. The rollover ratings for the Chevy Suburban are also good, along with other safety metrics.

So I'm definitely a target audience for these new hybrid cars, though frankly the SUV is a giant pain in the ass to drive (and, especially, park). I think the anti-SUV crowd would get a lot further if they ramped down the demonization a notch and focused on what expensive and unwieldy cars these really are.
posted by rcade at 2:16 PM on March 6, 2003


With all due respect, I rarely see SUV's taking up more than their one spot. I see people with their luxury cars taking up two spaces to protect their paint job just as often. I don't think anyone provides real facts about this behavior, so this is just my observation. As for "[SUV] dirvers are freqently inattentive" are there real statistics on these people being more innatentive? I doubt they're any better or worse than the average driver, but would listen if you have facts.

To make things fair to all, we should all get some sort of pollution quota. Last year I polluted less than the average person even driving my SUV. I enjoyed my 6000 miles of driving last year at 16 MPG. The average US driver (in a car) got 24 MPG and drove 11,500 miles. So what is the argument about here? Is it how much a person pollutes? How much a car pollutes? If it's about the gas mileage of SUV's, then these anti-SUV people should start complaining about most V8 and larger engines. I never hear these people complain about big luxury cars and collector hot rods. That's why I think this anti-SUV bashing is not about fuel efficiency...

Now if this new vehicle is priced competitively, will save me money and can carry a car seat and pinball machine at the same time (with all doors shut) I will have to take a look. Though I've never liked fords much in general ;)
posted by stormy at 2:21 PM on March 6, 2003


But what really honks me off is when I can't find a parking spot at work because SUVs and trucks take up a spot and a half...

Most of my negative experience with SUV's comes from seeing them (and some fullsized pick-up trucks) parked in parking lot spaces clarly labeled "COMPACT", and overlapping on the non-driver's side enough to make the space to its right too tight for even a Cooper Mini (hey, there's a car I'd like to see a hybrid version of... just kidding). That and the fact that the largest SUV ever owned by someone I knew well was the vehicle of a former boss - a single female with no practical need for a vehicle that size and some serious self-esteem issues that made her the worst non-white-male boss in my working history.

Now I could go on about those "COMPACT" parking spaces in general, but it'd probably turn into a Seinfeld-esque standup routine.
posted by wendell at 2:45 PM on March 6, 2003


With all due respect, I rarely see SUV's taking up more than their one spot. I see people with their luxury cars taking up two spaces to protect their paint job just as often.

Which leads us to the root of the problem--it's just a car, people! When folks learn to view their vehicles as machines whose sole purpose is to transport persons and [a limited amount of] stuff, and whose excellence is best measured on the efficiency and ease with which they perform that task, we'll all be a lot better off. I applaud substrate for taking the dings on his jeep in stride, and deride those who need two parking spaces to show the world how important they are.
posted by Raya at 3:51 PM on March 6, 2003


...even a Cooper Mini (hey, there's a car I'd like to see a hybrid version of... just kidding)

I've seen photos of a hydrogen-powered prototype, though I don't know if it was a static display model or a road-going example.
posted by jalexei at 4:01 PM on March 6, 2003


Cooper Mini (hey, there's a car I'd like to see a hybrid version of... just kidding)

Why kidding? The Cooper is a nice car and is a bit overpowered as it is (and the sport option is ridiculously overpowered). It would totally rock if they could get a hybrid engine for it and got like 80 mpg.
posted by azazello at 4:23 PM on March 6, 2003


I have a Civic Hybrid and I am very pleased with it. It obviously isn't the ultimate answer, but then the ultimate answer to things is rarely achieved.

If SUVs are going to exist (and Escapes are hardly the worst of the lot; I rented one for a camping road trip once and it didn't seem that big) I'm all for them being more fuel efficient rather than less.

I think one problem many people have with the hybrid technology is that they don't like the way it looks in the Prius (which has little to do with the hybridness). That is, in my opinion, an ugly.

The advantage of the Civic to me was that it looks just like a normal Civic, pretty much drives the same as well. But it isn't very evangelical because except for a small thing on the butt, there is no easy way for people to tell that it is different.
posted by obfusciatrist at 4:46 PM on March 6, 2003


The rollover ratings for the Chevy Suburban are also good, along with other safety metrics.

From the page you provided, the average rollover ratings for 2001 SUVs is 1.15 (where 1.00 = crap, and 1.51 seems to be the maximum rating). The Suburban i s rated at 1.13 (rear wd) and 1.14 (4 wd). So it has a below average rollover rating for SUVs. FYI, car rollover ratings range from 1.32 to 1.51.

Which is the reason I'm in an SUV instead of one of those ordinary cars. There's an arms race on the road these days, and I'd rather have my family in one of these behemoths in
case we're ever hit by another car.


Wise move, for you. For an account of a Suburban hitting a smaller car, see here.a
posted by carter at 7:02 PM on March 6, 2003


Funny thing I've noticed about the SUV backlash: I drive around Austin in my old Volvo 240 like a proper liberal, yet I've never been harrassed about the horrible gas mileage it gets (I believe the 1990 is rated 20 mpg city / 25 mpg highway but I think it'd need one hell of a tune-up to do even that well). Granted it's better than an Excursion, but I think the cultural roots of the complaint are showing in this respect. I've never heard people complain about hippies driving around in old VW Microbuses getting 14 mpg. (Then again, every other vehicle you see on the road isn't a Microbus, while SUVs seem to outnumber cars here in Texas.)

That said, I still find SUVs annoying for the other reasons mentioned in this thread, especially the parking problems. It's a daily occurance for me to approach a parking space and find that 1/3 of it is taken up by the SUV next to it.

And of course it's fun to pick on the suburban-living, Wal-Mart shopping, SUV-driving crowd. The good "us", the evil, ignorant "them", etc. (How sad.)
posted by boredomjockey at 8:45 PM on March 6, 2003


What is an SUV? Are they only monstrosities like Hummer H2s? Or are Jeep Cherokees included?

The term "Sport Utility Vehicle" is too ambiguous, IMHO.
posted by cinematique at 8:57 PM on March 6, 2003


Screw Ford. Their cars are total pieces of shit. The Focus has already had 70(!) recalls during its relatively short existence. The marketing shills will have us believe that Ford equals Quality, but the facts tell a different story...

And we've Ford to thank for helping to convince Mr and Mrs Average American that having 2 children or an "active lifestyle" (whatever the fuck that means) requires a 2-3 ton, top heavy, vision-blocking, headlight-blinding vehicle where a sedan or wagon used to be sufficient. Ford is also notable for releasing the incredibly irresponsible Excursion. They might as well have named it the Ford "Asshole"- because it would describe both the driver and how ugly it is.


Finally, someone here whined about the hardship of putting three kids in a Prius. Whatever happened to small wagons? Three kids automatically requires a fucking 3 ton deathmobile? I some parts of the world I've seen an entire family of 5 on a moped.

Jesus, we've become a nation of complete, lazy morons...
posted by drstrangelove at 9:58 PM on March 6, 2003


One last thing: Ford acts as if the hybrid Escape is the technological equivalent of cold fusion. Will someone let them know that Honda and Toyota have had this technology for on the road for three years now?
posted by drstrangelove at 10:01 PM on March 6, 2003


I'm 6'5". I have asthma and live in an urban area.

I'd buy one of these fuckers in a heartbeat ... if I didn't think it was going to be impossible to find parts in ten years.
posted by KiloHeavy at 11:22 PM on March 6, 2003


Most of my negative experience with SUV's comes from seeing them (and some fullsized pick-up trucks) parked in parking lot spaces clarly labeled "COMPACT", and overlapping on the non-driver's side enough to make the space to its right too tight for even a Cooper Mini

I might sound silly saying this, but wouldn't that mean the cooper mini couldn't fit in the compact space either?
posted by shepd at 12:01 AM on March 7, 2003


The real question is, would Jesus slap down some shekels for one of these things?
posted by Dagobert at 2:28 AM on March 7, 2003


shepd,

no, what he means is that the full sized truck parked in the compact space has shaved off enough of the adjacent parking space that a Cooper Mini wouldn't fit.

I never cause that problem with my jeep, I usually abandon it at the first spot I find and just walk through the parking lot. For some reason that annoys the crap out of girl friends but I on the other hand can't stand the 10 mph circuit through every row in the mall to find a primo parking space.

Also, what KiloHeavy said. The one thing I worry about with new technologies is both the build quality on early units (this even means new automobiles using regular internal combustion engines) or the chance of finding parts for repairs.
posted by substrate at 4:46 AM on March 7, 2003


Surely the people who are going to buy a hybred car are the types who would be willing to buy a non V8 car.

I've never understood this one. Why is the American market dominated by a need for huge engines? I drive a standard Toyota Carina (no idea what the American equivilent is). It does 40mpg with me driving it fairly hard, does 0-60 in about 10 seconds and I had the thing up to 120mph before I chickened out.

Sure a V8 _sounds_ nicer, but does that matter when you're inside the car?

And do you use Diesel fuel in cars in America?

More power than Petrol, often cleaner than petrol, just as quiet at a petrol engine, and cheaper for fuel...
posted by twine42 at 4:50 AM on March 7, 2003


The term "Sport Utility Vehicle" is too ambiguous, IMHO.

I agree. The Ford Escape is actually based on the Mazda 626 platform, thus does not have a truck chassis. My wife drives the Mazda version of the Escape and I have an old Subaru wagon -- we both get about the same gas mileage. The main reason we drive these vehicles is for the all wheel drive. The tradeoff in fuel economy is worth the security.

Back to the topic, I think hybrids are a move in the right direction, but should only be considered stopgap. Hybrids still use a gas-powered internal combustion engine, to which you need to factor the added weight and complexity of the hybrid "guts". Add to this the need to dispose of those dang storage batteries when the time comes, and they no longer seem so ecologically friendly.
posted by SteveInMaine at 5:46 AM on March 7, 2003


And do you use Diesel fuel in cars in America?

There are some such as the various VW diesels (golf,jetta,beetle). I drove a diesel jetta way back in high school and got wonderful mileage. Unless I took a long trip, I could go about a month between fillups on a 12 gallon tank.

Most of the large trucks in the US offer a diesel engine for increased towing power. As far as SUVs the excursion and the hummer are the only ones I know of that offer a diesel engine.

And, surprisingly, there are fuel pumps throughout the country offering biodiesel already. I like diesel because if offers almost exactly the same mileage as hybrids (jetta 49mpg, hybrid civic 52mpg) but you don't have to worry about replacing/disposing the batteries.
posted by jsonic at 6:01 AM on March 7, 2003


I've never understood this one. Why is the American market dominated by a need for huge engines?

Its not really the engines, its the cars that the engines pull. We spend A LOT of time in our cars in the US (I don't I'm one of the lucky ones that lives in a place with a good public transport system and gave up my car). Think about it, France is almost the size of Texas. Texas is just one of 50 states, we aren't packed in like European countries, you can't get from LA to New York in like you can get from Edinburgh to London in a few hours, think DAYS! Just imagine now being packed into a tiny compact with no air conditioning and driving a full day through the Arizona desert, now you can see why an air conditioned Buick sounds a lot more appealing. If they could get a tiny, efficient engine to power a gigantic lump of steel down our highways, then you might actually see Americans buy them.

As far as diesel, I'm not sure why it never caught on in the US for autos, I guess that blows my smaller engine on a bigger car theory, but of course diesel was recently shown to cause more environmental damage so I'm not so sure that's a great alternative anyway!
posted by Pollomacho at 7:15 AM on March 7, 2003


twine42:

Why is the American market dominated by a need for huge engines?

Um, because most Americans are a bunch of insecure tossers?

If SUVs and light trucks were held to the same CAFE standards as cars, I wouldn't have any problem with them. Unfortunately, most SUV drivers are insecure suburbanites who have been deluded into thinking that SUVs are a safe and effective minivan substitute and have no problem driving a gas guzzler as long as they can afford it.

If gasoline was as expensive as it is in Europe, SUVs would dissapear very quickly indeed. Fat chance of that with an oilman in the White House.
posted by mark13 at 11:53 AM on March 7, 2003


Um, because most Americans are a bunch of insecure tossers?

Yup. That's what the world needs: more false generalizations. Thanks mark13.

The most popular vehicles in the U.S. are the Ford Taurus, Honda Accord, and Toyota Camry. 'Huge' is not an adjective I'd use to describe these vehicles or their engines.
posted by jsonic at 12:19 PM on March 7, 2003


Thanks jsonic, save those comments for this thread!

I would have to agree that SUVs and larger sedans are far more common in the US and the Mini and the Swatch car are not too common, in fact I don't think the tiny "Smart" car is even legal here. The Taurus is a monster compared to a Mini.

The fact is we do use more fuel than anyone else, we are the world's largest consumers. We drive cars, we drive a lot, but its not really a fair comparison between the US and Britain or Italy or even France, we are 50 times larger, you can't just hop in your Vauxhall Astra and whisk off to Sheffield in a couple hours to visit Grandma for the day, Grandma lives in Florida and that's 16 hours from where you live and there's no train to her town from where you live and Greyhound is incomprehensible. At least compare us to Canada or China. In Canada cars are pretty much like in the US and in China American cars are staring to become as common as bicycles, so the sky's the limit there!
posted by Pollomacho at 12:36 PM on March 7, 2003


If gasoline was as expensive as it is in Europe, SUVs would dissapear very quickly indeed. Fat chance of that with an oilman in the White House.

$2 a gallon and rising, who needs tax when you have an impending oil war?

SUV's, Iraq, couldn't quite get the I/P reference to complete the trifecta though...

posted by inpHilltr8r at 2:06 PM on March 7, 2003


« Older A set of 24 colour blindness tests...  |  Hussein Translator on CBS Used... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments