Is the SUV Age about over?

[imported_cello]

Nope. Infact their in huge demand in China..their now affluent middle class wants and has the cash to by em along with large luxury vehicles..Caddilac is going to mfgr.a vehicle in China to meet the pent up demand for large vehicles..it's only just begun.

 

[complacent]

I drive an SUV for the following reasons. Someone, please give me an alternative vehicle that can fit these needs that is not an SUV or a truck.

Ability to tow 4,000 boat and gear w/ passengers and maintain highway speed of 55 mph
Ability to carry 5 or more passengers + gear/groceries
Ability to carry a few sheets of plywood / various lumber
Ability to navigate often snowy and icy roads (I live in Alaska)
Ability to withstand the force of hitting a 2,000 pound moose on the highway
Survive a rollover
Reliable at -50 degrees Farenheit

Let me see your VW bus do that

 

[Gurck]

No one has mentioned the most compelling argument against SUVs - many of them are too high off the ground and tend to go over the bulk of the cars they hit or which hit them in accidents (accidents do happen, after all), skipping over the crumple zones and more directly impacting the car's passengers. Even low speed SUV vs. car accidents are often fatal for the car's passenger(s). On door dings: SUVs vs. sports cars - far more women drive SUVs than sports cars. This plays a big part in the bad helmsmanship & parking of them as well.

 

[complacent]

Originally posted by: Gurck
No one has mentioned the most compelling argument against SUVs - many of them are too high off the ground and tend to go over the bulk of the cars they hit or which hit them in accidents (accidents do happen, after all), skipping over the crumple zones and more directly impacting the car's passengers. Even low speed SUV vs. car accidents are often fatal for the car's passenger(s). On door dings: SUVs vs. sports cars - far more women drive SUVs than sports cars. This plays a big part in the bad helmsmanship & parking of them as well.

Point 1: Skipping over crumple zones and killing passengers: Sounds like YOUR problem, not mine. I will keep my SUV, thank you. Make your cars higher off the ground. We could all start bitching about how low vehicles are. Is it necessary for people to drive a car that is 3 inches off the ground? They do it for better handling at high speeds....hmmm...

Point 2: I hope you are kidding about more women driving SUV's. First, where are your statistics? Are we to believe it because you say so? Second, are you implying that women are worse drivers than men? Please explain to me then why the insurance rate for women is drastically lower than it is for men. When I was 16 and got my first vehicle, my girlfriend at the time paid about 1/3 of what I paid for a comparable vehicle and neither of us had any driving record. I think your broad (no pun) generalization is sickening and shows that you know approximately dick.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: complacent
I drive an SUV for the following reasons. Someone, please give me an alternative vehicle that can fit these needs that is not an SUV or a truck.

Ability to tow 4,000 boat and gear w/ passengers and maintain highway speed of 55 mph
Ability to carry 5 or more passengers + gear/groceries
Ability to carry a few sheets of plywood / various lumber
Ability to navigate often snowy and icy roads (I live in Alaska)
Ability to withstand the force of hitting a 2,000 pound moose on the highway
Survive a rollover
Reliable at -50 degrees Farenheit

Let me see your VW bus do that

Check this out

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: rbloedow
Why do you care so much? So people want large cars - it's their money, STFU already. How they spend THEIR money is of no concern to you.

It has nothing to do with that argument.

Strictly about the selfishness of the scarce resource.

Why would you be OK with a vehicle that gets less gas mileage than a vehicle dating back to 1973???

Means less gas for the rest of us.

What ever happened to wanting humans to progress forward??? Why this love affair with going backwards?

ROFL. That's how a market economy works with private goods. America isn't a socialist state (well, not yet, anyway).

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: rbloedow
Why do you care so much? So people want large cars - it's their money, STFU already. How they spend THEIR money is of no concern to you.

It has nothing to do with that argument.

Strictly about the selfishness of the scarce resource.

Why would you be OK with a vehicle that gets less gas mileage than a vehicle dating back to 1973???

Means less gas for the rest of us.

What ever happened to wanting humans to progress forward??? Why this love affair with going backwards?

ROFL. That's how a market economy works with private goods. America isn't a socialist state (well, not yet, anyway).

So you're OK with the Country being a retarded State and going backwards instead of forward in Technology and fuel consumption???

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
So you're OK with the Country being a retarded State and going backwards instead of forward in Technology and fuel consumption???

You are making the assumption that better fuel economy is the only factor equating to progress, or at least that it trumps all the other factors. Even if that were true, it should be for the market to decide, not individuals such as yourself that wish to control the actions of others.

 

[complacent]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
So you're OK with the Country being a retarded State and going backwards instead of forward in Technology and fuel consumption???

Wow. You are truly uninformed. You need to move to Cuba where they embrace your thinking. This is along the lines of: Why should you get to eat steak when so many people are starving? Why should you get to live in a heated house when so many people live in a cold, clay home? Why should you even get to drive a car when so many people could benefit if you used YOUR money to buy them medicine?

First off, how is it going backward in technology? My Envoy gets 275 HP out of an inline 6. It gets 15/20. THAT is GOOD technology and good fuel consumption compared to what it could be,

Where do we draw the line? Some newer diesel vehicles are getting 55 mpg. Why is your 30 mpg car still around then? By your thinking, as soon as something more efficient comes along we should all ditch our vehicles and get the newest thing.

The thing that cracks me up is that it is people like you that start Hummer dealerships on fire. Anyone remember that? And the scientists said how ironic it was, because the amount of toxic waste coming off of the dealership from burning was more than all of the Hummers in the world would ever produce.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: complacent
I drive an SUV for the following reasons. Someone, please give me an alternative vehicle that can fit these needs that is not an SUV or a truck.

Ability to tow 4,000 boat and gear w/ passengers and maintain highway speed of 55 mph
Ability to carry 5 or more passengers + gear/groceries
Ability to carry a few sheets of plywood / various lumber
Ability to navigate often snowy and icy roads (I live in Alaska)
Ability to withstand the force of hitting a 2,000 pound moose on the highway
Survive a rollover
Reliable at -50 degrees Farenheit

Let me see your VW bus do that

That's why there will be people buying SUV's. Obviously if you need a truck based SUV, you need it. But 90% of people buying them in the 90s were buying them to do minivan duty in suburbia thinking they look cooler in an SUV. Once the cool factor is gone, they'll go back to driving minivans and wagons, or the SUV's will become nothing more than Minivans or wagons. Pacifica is a prime example. SUV's killed off many fine affordable sports cars, because the cool image shifted from those to offroaders. Now those sport cars are coming back and they are cool again.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: nourdmrolNMT1
if your pissed off at door dings, why dont you get pissed off at the 2 door sports cars? their doors are MUCH longer and thus would much more easily hit your car than any 4 door vehicle.
dont be so lazy, park further away and away from vehicles.

It's about a wash. Sports cars aren't as wide as SUVs. Trucks/SUVs fill the average parking spot with the vehicle body alone.

Bull. No car fills up your average parking place, unless you park somewhere that has those "extra-small" slots.
A dump truck fits easily in the average parking place. SUV's have room on both sides....it's the no-driving people of all cars that cause door dings.

 

[imthebadguy]

expeditions are baller

 

[thomsbrain]

well i believe that car trends have mostly to do with what's in style and little to do with practicality. the SUV craze was a response to minivans getting too dorky. i think SUV's have reached that stage now. what will replace them, i'm not sure. it does seem like we're getting a lot of people excited about mid-size sport wagons, but i wouldn't put money on them.

 

[TimMyMac]

Originally posted by: Spikesoldier

Originally posted by: rbloedow
Why do you care so much? So people want large cars - it's their money, STFU already. How they spend THEIR money is of no concern to you.

here we go again..let me throw a cannister of gasoline into the flames..


"well it is of damn concern to me when they ding my car with their big doors, run me off the side of the road because of the huge blind spots, cant stay in their own lane when driving taking two lanes, cant park right taking up two parking spaces...yaddaydaddyadydyblahblbahlahlahalhmoanamoanaon"

edit: added closing "

:thumbsup:

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
So you're OK with the Country being a retarded State and going backwards instead of forward in Technology and fuel consumption???

You are making the assumption that better fuel economy is the only factor equating to progress, or at least that it trumps all the other factors. Even if that were true, it should be for the market to decide, not individuals such as yourself that wish to control the actions of others.

An 8 mpg Tank is an 8 MPG Tank no matter how you dress it up.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
So you're OK with the Country being a retarded State and going backwards instead of forward in Technology and fuel consumption???

You are making the assumption that better fuel economy is the only factor equating to progress, or at least that it trumps all the other factors. Even if that were true, it should be for the market to decide, not individuals such as yourself that wish to control the actions of others.

An 8 mpg Tank is an 8 MPG Tank no matter how you dress it up.

Is that your entire response? Wow... I figured you would be able to spew more crap than that in a post.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
So you're OK with the Country being a retarded State and going backwards instead of forward in Technology and fuel consumption???

You are making the assumption that better fuel economy is the only factor equating to progress, or at least that it trumps all the other factors. Even if that were true, it should be for the market to decide, not individuals such as yourself that wish to control the actions of others.

An 8 mpg Tank is an 8 MPG Tank no matter how you dress it up.

Is that your entire response? Wow... I figured you would be able to spew more crap than that in a post.

No need to say anymore, an 8 mpg Hummer or Expedition rolling down the street says it all.

 

[IAteYourMother]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
So you're OK with the Country being a retarded State and going backwards instead of forward in Technology and fuel consumption???

You are making the assumption that better fuel economy is the only factor equating to progress, or at least that it trumps all the other factors. Even if that were true, it should be for the market to decide, not individuals such as yourself that wish to control the actions of others.

An 8 mpg Tank is an 8 MPG Tank no matter how you dress it up.

Yah.... unless you have so much stuff you need to make two trips

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: DurocShark
I sure as fsck hope so.

I'm with you there man.

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: complacent
Point 1: Skipping over crumple zones and killing passengers: Sounds like YOUR problem, not mine. I will keep my SUV, thank you. Make your cars higher off the ground. We could all start bitching about how low vehicles are. Is it necessary for people to drive a car that is 3 inches off the ground? They do it for better handling at high speeds....hmmm...

The stupidity displayed by that paragraph is nothing short of amazing... let me guess, you support Bush? Anyway, this is the case with all cars, not lowered ricers & sports cars.

Point 2: I hope you are kidding about more women driving SUV's. First, where are your statistics? Are we to believe it because you say so? Second, are you implying that women are worse drivers than men? Please explain to me then why the insurance rate for women is drastically lower than it is for men. When I was 16 and got my first vehicle, my girlfriend at the time paid about 1/3 of what I paid for a comparable vehicle and neither of us had any driving record. I think your broad (no pun) generalization is sickening and shows that you know approximately dick.

Common sense tells anyone with a shred of it which type of vehicle has more women drivers, and yes I'm implying that they're bad drivers. Their insurance rate is lower for two reasons, 1) their accidents tend to happen at lower speeds and 2) many of them involve parked cars - the woman drives off and the insurance companies don't *know* (even though they know). And yes, now that I've met you, I do know dick...

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: complacent
Point 1: Skipping over crumple zones and killing passengers: Sounds like YOUR problem, not mine. I will keep my SUV, thank you. Make your cars higher off the ground. We could all start bitching about how low vehicles are. Is it necessary for people to drive a car that is 3 inches off the ground? They do it for better handling at high speeds....hmmm...

The stupidity displayed by that paragraph is nothing short of amazing... let me guess, you support Bush? Anyway, this is the case with all cars, not lowered ricers & sports cars.

Point 2: I hope you are kidding about more women driving SUV's. First, where are your statistics? Are we to believe it because you say so? Second, are you implying that women are worse drivers than men? Please explain to me then why the insurance rate for women is drastically lower than it is for men. When I was 16 and got my first vehicle, my girlfriend at the time paid about 1/3 of what I paid for a comparable vehicle and neither of us had any driving record. I think your broad (no pun) generalization is sickening and shows that you know approximately dick.

Common sense tells anyone with a shred of it which type of vehicle has more women drivers, and yes I'm implying that they're bad drivers. Their insurance rate is lower for two reasons, 1) their accidents tend to happen at lower speeds and 2) many of them involve parked cars - the woman drives off and the insurance companies don't *know* (even though they know). And yes, now that I've met you, I do know dick...

You, sir, are the one displaying the stupidity. By your logic, everyone should drive the identical vehicle as to not give anyone an advantage, and that is ridiculous.

 

[complacent]

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: complacent
Point 1: Skipping over crumple zones and killing passengers: Sounds like YOUR problem, not mine. I will keep my SUV, thank you. Make your cars higher off the ground. We could all start bitching about how low vehicles are. Is it necessary for people to drive a car that is 3 inches off the ground? They do it for better handling at high speeds....hmmm...

The stupidity displayed by that paragraph is nothing short of amazing... let me guess, you support Bush? Anyway, this is the case with all cars, not lowered ricers & sports cars.

Point 2: I hope you are kidding about more women driving SUV's. First, where are your statistics? Are we to believe it because you say so? Second, are you implying that women are worse drivers than men? Please explain to me then why the insurance rate for women is drastically lower than it is for men. When I was 16 and got my first vehicle, my girlfriend at the time paid about 1/3 of what I paid for a comparable vehicle and neither of us had any driving record. I think your broad (no pun) generalization is sickening and shows that you know approximately dick.

Common sense tells anyone with a shred of it which type of vehicle has more women drivers, and yes I'm implying that they're bad drivers. Their insurance rate is lower for two reasons, 1) their accidents tend to happen at lower speeds and 2) many of them involve parked cars - the woman drives off and the insurance companies don't *know* (even though they know). And yes, now that I've met you, I do know dick...

I just found some statistics showing that SUV's account for only 23.9% of the womens market. Men's market share was 25%. Let me get out my calculator....yup, it looks like 25% > 23.9%, hence MORE MEN OWN SUV'S THAN WOMEN DO, especially since men tend to buy more vehicles.

Link: http://www.polk.com/news/releases/2002_0106a.asp


Wow, it is nice to see you stoop to petty personal attacks on POLITICS. That has nothing to do what we are talking about. SHOW ME PROOF IT IS THE CASE WITH ALL CARS. Give me a link. How is it different if a big truck hits a car instead of an SUV? You have no ability to debate because you make broad assumptions.

Second, common sense tells us not to make stupid assumptions when arguing. As anyone can see from the link above, YOU ARE CLEARLY WRONG ABOUT THE RATIO OF OWNERSHIP BY GENDER. Anyone with any knowledge of statistics knows you can't just go spouting off some bullshit about common sense saying which way the numbers fall. Show me some proof, give me a link, and I'll start to see your side.

Furthermore, your reasoning about lower insurance is fallacious because YOU CANNOT PROVIDE ME PROOF. Show me an insurance website with some sort of statistic. Prove to me that more women than men hit parked cars and drive off.

Again, your arguments are full of assumptions and seem to fit exactly what you say. You make generalizations and use univesal quantifiers, saying ALL SUV's roll over ALL cars' crumple zones. You make absolutely no sense. You are one of those idiots that argues based upon assumption and not actual fact.

I am not some women's lib pussy...I just HATE when people make assumptions.

Link: http://www.polk.com/news/releases/2002_0106a.asp

Go here to see stats about how MALE drivers are more likely to get into a rollover-wreck in an SUV:
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/RNotes/2003/809-636/Younger Drivers/pages/page 2.html

Go here to see stats about how MALE drivers are more likely to do something distracting while driving, or something dangerous, than women: http://netscape.autotrader.com...yinfo&restype=used

Owned.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: complacent
Owned.

Confirmed :thumbsup:

 

[Pliablemoose]

Some members need to stay in P&N, and not venture out into the real world,

 

[Gurck]

MORE MEN OWN SUV'S THAN WOMEN DO, especially since men tend to buy more vehicles

Men whose wives drive them, your point?

You condoned killing people, flaming me doesn't detract from that.