I understand and agree that a single person no more needs a Suburban than a large family requires a Miata. But our differences lie in who determines this "common decency." I'd much rather leave it up to the individual, rather than a govt. that would take away the right of people to freely use the marketplace to find the vehicle that suits their needs. Besides, I'm doing my part. My truck has a Cummins Diesel and with a tow, I get around 17 mpg, 26 mpg without. Also, you fail to note that most SUV's, beside the gigantic ones, are becoming more car-like (like the Highlander, RAV4, Escape, MDX and Pilot to name a few) with lighter uni-bodies and better gas mileage. The numbers of the huge luxo-barges, while increasing, are miniscule when compared to sales of far more efficient conventional family sedans like the Accord and Camry. I wasn't trying to call you names, but I just don't like that whole "screw you, because I have mine," phrase. It just smacks of very ugly class envy.
I'm sorry -- it was not a personal attack. Not at all. My apologies if it came across that way. You're absolutely correct about SUVs like the Highlander, RAV4 and others. They're not perfect, but they're MUCH better for the rest of us than the Escalades, Touaregs and Expeditions. Those are just ridiculous. I honestly can't believe they're legal. We're all individuals, and we all make our own choices. That's what makes America so wonderful. But that freedom also comes with responsibililty. Choosing a slightly smaller SUV instead of a huge luxo-barge (love that phrase!) isn't that much to ask. It's a reasonable request to help us move toward a cleaner, safer, less oil-dependent future.
Like I said, the average working man like you or I can not afford the Touaregs, Escalades and Expeditions. So they are going to be relatively scarce. This is just a very silly fad that one day these people that customized these SUV's are going to be embarassed, just like those awful custom vans with shag carpet, 8-tracks and those awful teardrop windows back in the 1970's. Cars will come back when the domestic automakers bring back rear (I would say real) wheel drive in bread and butter sedans. Wouldn't you buy domestic if Ford/Chevy put out rear-wheel drive Malibu's, Tauruses (personally I perfer the CLEtaurus, Coupe Limited Edition Taurus ) and Impalas that handled like they belonged on the Autobahn rather than parked in front of the bingo parlor? If we can make V-8's that can get better miles to the gallon with that new/old cylinder shut-off technology (developed by GM in the 70's and only recently perfected thanks to computers), imagine it in a rear-wheel drive passenger car the size of an Accord? Damn that would be nice.
<b>bama</b>: I know very little about cars. I thought front-wheel drive was supposed to make cars handle better? What is the big advantge with rear-wheel drive.
Front wheel drive is better from the standpoint that it is easier for people to handle in wet weather or snow, but as far as handling and the expensive need to replace CV axles, it is more expensive in the long run. Rear wheel drive cars handle better because in front wheel cars, the front wheels have to handle both acceleration and steering, whereas in rear wheel drive cars, the front wheels handle only steering and the rears handle acceleration, also allowing a driver to use the throttle to steer as well. (In my 928, I do it quite often). Also they are much more simpler and do not require you to replace CV axles every 70,000 miles or so.
I made the money to buy it! It is my money and I can do whatever I want! I don't need to listen to your complaints! Whatever! You're just jealous! You just wish you could have what I have! I can do whatever I want with MY MONEY! IT'S MY MONEY! MINE! I can do whatever I want!
Mickey Kaus wrote a great column called "Why Front-wheel Drive Sucks - and why rear wheel drive is coming back" It explains very well for the layman... http://slate.msn.com/id/2081194/ In terms of the public safety aspect of SUVs, this paragraph from the article appalled me... That's pretty scary. The article also mentions that the metal deer-guard things add danger in a collision as well. I guess I thought the most striking thing about the article was the collusion between Washington and the motor companies. Like someone said before, the technology and engineering today make it possible to fix many of the things that make SUVs so bad, without sacrificing the things most consumers look for. But the industry won't do it, and the government won't make them. As long as their in each other's pockets, I guess it will be up to informed consumers to demand better safety, gas mileage, emission standards, etc. But it seems like consumers often need a catalyst, a story to rally behind i.e. Unsafe at Any Speed, or Silent Spring. You would have thought the rollover/tread seperation story would have sparked some opposition, but maybe the ad-dependent media didn't do an adequate job covering the real story there and the extent of the manufacturer's guilt. SUVs aren't inherently evil, and neither are the people that buy them. But they DO have an undeniable effect on the environment, public safety, and public policy, and so the issue deserves some scrutiny, especially the relationships between Detroit and Washington...
buying an SUV is selfish and extremely wasteful. GV, I'd like to hear your comments & suggested SUV/heavy truck alternatives for folks like TECH and myself, who have crap to haul, things to tow, and dirt to drive over.
I'd add that we're in 100000000% agreement on the luxury SUV behemoths (Escalade/Tahoes/Excursion). Few things piss me off more than seeing a lady (alone) driving her fancified Tahoe around shopping.
I agree that for people who have a good reason to own a large vehicle (you mentioned three good examples), that there is no reason to berate them. I have never held anything against ranchers, boaters, or others who NEED a large vehicle for whatever reason. However, the vast majority of us do not need an SUV. A minivan is more than sufficient for the soccer moms and is even regulated like a car. I would not have nearly as much of a problem with SUVs if they had to conform to the same mileage, pollution, and safety standards that the rest of the vehicles on the road have to meet.
My apologies for being so blunt. I was just trying to make a point (much too pointedly, in hindsight). I have *very* few problems with using an SUV or large truck for their intended purposes. Sometimes, in some jobs or rare circumstances, the only thing that works is a big-ass diesel 4x4.
But the problem with forcing a truck to meet car safety, pollution and mileage standards is that it would eliminate the very capabilities that Buck, Tech and myself prize in trucks. Body on frame construction is very heavy and big engines suck up a lot of gas, but to do the big-boy things we need, like towing boats, campers, car carrier trailers, etc, our trucks need those characteristics. These huge SUV's are nothing more than a passing fad that will eventually fade away into history.
