SUVs justified...

[MovingTarget]

If you squint real hard at the FJ you might detect some photochopping. The Olds wagon runs great and is well maintained despite losing its wood. It is very comfortable. There is a lot to be said for being able to lie down and sleep in back while taking turns driving on long trips.

I've never owned a minivan. The few times I've rented them, I had no complaints, they serve a useful purpose.

Yeah, but I wouldn't put it past many of the 'modders' today....I'm sure that someone will eventually do just that IRL.

I seem to have gotten you confused with another poster on AT who had a Turbovan at one point. EyeMWing, I think had one. Sorry for hte mistake.

Minivans are great and serve their purpose well. They just aren't anything I would want/need for the forseeable future. They are quite nice though...

 

[brblx]

No, the question is, why do you care what other people need or want?

People do not have to buy things because they need them, or because they are the most economical or practical choice, or because you think they should. That is YOUR criteria, and not necessarily everyone else's.

To answer OPs original post, the answer is that it has nothing to do with SUVs so much as the fact that this forum is heavily left slanted. We have a bunch of closet commies on this forum who can't accept that people in the US are free to earn and spend their money however they want, who feel that only absolute need and practicality, "useful purpose", efficiency, fairness, equality, and environmental friendliness are the only reasons anyone should have anything, and only then if the government approves of course (as long as the things banned are the things they want banned and not things they want).

All the people who want SUVs banned would throw a shit fit if the same standard of "usefulness" was applied to Ferraris, BMWs, Mercedes, etc that get 8 mpg.

Now if you'll excuse me I have a 500+ HP non SUV gas guzzling earth destroyer to go wash and wax.

gee, who would've guessed your political leanings were not towards the left.

typical right-wing POV; i can do whatever i want when i want, just don't let everyone else's freedoms get in my way.

 

[exdeath]

Why do I care? Because other people's excess affects ME. People who buy vehicles that eat gas not only affect their own pocketbook in fuel costs, but drive up fuel consumption overall - thus raising prices for the fuel I buy.

It's called supply and demand. I don't see you bitching about not being able to afford more diamonds or flat screen TVs because they are expensive and everyone else is causing the price to go up. Did you leave the gas station out of stock? No? Why didn't you buy more then? You also realize the people who consume more gas are also paying much more than you?

When someone buys a large SUV/truck with no intention of actually using the capability - then my tax dollars will be going to fix the roads/bridges that their heavier vehicles incur, which is a waste.

You mean the same roads that are designed to be regularly traveled by 350,000 lb 18 wheelers and UPS trucks without incident, to deliver you computer parts you don't need, are being damaged by 6,000 lb SUVs?

Then there is also the pollution issue - especially important if you live near a city.

But Ferraris and BMWs and similar vehicles or those with 10,000 RPM engines that you guys drool over that get 8 mpg are ok, right? Just as long as it's not a SUV.

Larger, higher up vehicles take up more room on the highways, do not handle as well, and have blind spots which increase the probability of accidents.

They are required to carry insurance just like you, and probably pay higher premiums. Also last time I checked, people are held responsible for their actions, not their potential. This is the same mentality as the gun banners who are scared of potential and what if scenarios more than the actual events which aren't as common or as significant as you are led to believe.

Keep drinking the koolaid and hiding under your blanket from the boogie-men.

 

[brblx]

Keep drinking the koolaid and hiding under your blanket from the boogie-men.

highly ironic line, seeing as your entire belief system is based around fear.

and please, regale us again with the argument about how people should be allowed to drive drunk if they want to. that'll help your case.

 

[exdeath]

highly ironic line, seeing as your entire belief system is based around fear.

You are seriously misinformed. My belief system is base on individual liberty, something that is endangered by irrational mass fear.

and please, regale us again with the argument about how people should be allowed to drive drunk if they want to. that'll help your case.

Driving while drunk and endangering others is not the same as someone who had a sip of beer, is completely uninhibited, being locked up with a DUI charge because of overzealous "zero tolerance" one size fits all enforcement.

That argument had to do with the reason blanket zero tolerance laws that ignore case by case circumstances are a bad idea.

 

[MovingTarget]

It's called supply and demand. I don't see you bitching about not being able to afford more diamonds or flat screen TVs because they are expensive and everyone else is causing the price to go up. Did you leave the gas station out of stock? No? Why didn't you buy more then?

Transport is simply not a luxury item in the vast majority of the US. That is not a valid comparison.

You mean the same roads that are regularly traveled by 350,000 lb 18 wheelers and UPS trucks without incident, to deliver you computer parts you don't need, are being damaged by 6,000 lb SUVs?

Yes, those roads. 18 wheelers and UPS trucks are actually used for their capabilities, not to go out on a Friday evening for ice cream. If a vehicle is actively being used for its true capabilities on a semi-regular basis, then there is no problem. This includes SUVs. Nobody drives around in a fully loaded Peterbuilt as a status symbol.

But Ferraris and BMWs and similar vehicles or those with 10,000 RPM engines that you guys drool over that get 8 mpg are ok, right? Just as long as it's not a SUV.

Wrong. Those are meant to go fast, and we do in fact set limits for public safety. Take them to the track when you really want to go full throttle. As far as fuel goes, the same argument applies - they are not okay and need to be improved upon.

They are required to carry insurance just like you, and probably pay higher premiums. Also last time I checked, people are held responsible for their actions, not their potential. This is the same mentality as the gun banners who are scared of potential and what if scenarios more than the actual events which aren't as common or as significant as you are led to believe.

No. By the time you actually need to utilize your (or somebody else's) insurance, it is too late as the damage has been done. The idea is to avoid that situation to begin with. The comparison between SUV opinions and the right to bear arms holds less water than a bucket with a hole in the bottom. The idea is that damage resultant from vehicles is largely of the unintended kind, whereas from firearms it is most always intentional. You do not accidentally shoot someone just because you couldn't see them.

Not only that, there is a reason that firearm ownership is considered/defined as a right, not a privledge. You cannot in any way make the same claim about SUV ownership.

Keep drinking the koolaid and hiding under your blanket from the boogie-men.

Responses in bold. The boogie-men aren't out to get me at all. However, you seem to think that the SUV-hater-boogiemen suddenly want to take away your vehicle and sap and impurify your precious bodily fluids while we are at it.

 

[PhoKingGuy]

Holy shit this degenerated quickly.

Bottom line:

If you can afford it, and if you like it. Thats all that matters, if one chooses to be environmentally friendly then so be it, if they dont, then they can pay the price in higher fuel costs.

 

[ElFenix]

It's called supply and demand. I don't see you bitching about not being able to afford more diamonds or flat screen TVs because they are expensive and everyone else is causing the price to go up. Did you leave the gas station out of stock? No? Why didn't you buy more then? You also realize the people who consume more gas are also paying much more than you?

problem is consumption of diamonds and flat screen TVs doesn't fuel wars in the middle east eating up billions if not trillions of tax dollars. consumption of diamonds and flat screen TVs also doesn't affect the quality of the air i breathe (at least, no where to the extent that consumption of fossil fuels does).

When someone buys a large SUV/truck with no intention of actually using the capability - then my tax dollars will be going to fix the roads/bridges that their heavier vehicles incur, which is a waste.

iirc, the wear on roads caused by 18 wheelers is several orders of magnitude higher than that caused by cars and light trucks. basically, the entire gas tax system is currently a subsidy of truckers.

 

[rh71]

then ban nascar and all other racing... such a waste of gas, resources, and it pollutes - OH-EMM-GEE.

 

[rh71]

The more you post the dumber your comments get.

Station wagons aren't produced anymore in the numbers they once were due to the consumer. If people wanted station wagons, they would make them. Instead people want minivans and SUV's, which for me are an impractical choice.

With a station wagon you have similar cargo room, low to the ground which makes for better handling/safety, and good fuel economy.

If you look at who makes station wagons now, it's higher end makers like BMW, Mercedes, Volvo. Why? Because an educated/intelligent person would clearly choose that over an SUV.

Just because people find something popular and good doesn't mean it is, look at food for example, everyone eats corn fed shit most of the time, but is it good? No, it's not.

If you want to break it down even further, everyone likes the suburbs with big houses, huge winding streets, and the need of a vehical just to get to the corner store. Is that good though? Not really, but people find it popular because they can (for now).

I look at my dad's 1992 Toyota Camry wagon with the I4 engine. It's got 470,000 km on it and runs like a tank. We've transported entire groups of people with it, x-mas tree's, refridgerators, 40 inch tube TV's, and more. It get's around 700 km from a 60 liter tank which is awesome. It drives just like a car, not a fat slob tank SUV. From a practicallity standpoint, what better car can you buy for the money?

"people who buy the popular things are sheep and I'm better than them because I can think for myself. I'm special." Sounds like the general AT mindset. What a surprise.

Start listing the benefits of an SUV / minivan - you might realize some things. And I'd like to see who actually prefers the wagon styling over an SUV given the choice. I'm sure that alone made people's choices easier... you know, as long as they get their own opinions.

 

[Bignate603]

Edit: double postage issues

 

[Bignate603]

iirc, the wear on roads caused by 18 wheelers is several orders of magnitude higher than that caused by cars and light trucks. basically, the entire gas tax system is currently a subsidy of truckers.

Yes, and you never buy anything that's delivered on a truck. If truckers end up paying more they're just going to pass the cost on to the consumer. You'll end up paying for it anyways.

 

[MovingTarget]

Start listing the benefits of an SUV / minivan - you might realize some things.

Good idea. A list would be helpful. Please let me know if I've left anything out.

SUV Pro: High ground clearance (for terrain issues), cargo capacity, towing capacity, passenger room, 4wd (often available),

SUV Con: Fuel efficiency, larger blind spots, high center of gravity (handling)

Minivan Pro: Interior cargo capacity (>SUV), passenger room

Minivan Con: Fuel efficiency (>SUV, but <CAR), medium-high center of gravity, larger blind spots, low ground clearance

Wagon Pro: Handling/fuel efficiency on par with CAR, cargo capacity, low center of gravity

Wagon Con: low ground clearance

CAR Pro: Handling, fuel efficiency, smallest blind spots

CAR Con: cargo/people capacity, lowest ground clearance

 

[exdeath]

Holy shit this degenerated quickly.

It's bound to happen whenever there is a anti-SUV debate, as the root of such debate has nothing to do with SUVs. SUVs are merely a popular symbol for what is really an argument about needs vs wants and usefulness and efficiency vs. excess and what individuals should or shouldn't need or want or be allowed to have or do.

Essentially at the root of all anti-SUV tirades on this forum is a debate on capitalism vs. communism; eg: allowing people's incomes to determine their needs and wants in a free market vs. using one sided laws to allow the government to force and coral others in a certain mandated direction as determined by society's opinion of "need". It's only natural that they happen frequently given the leftist majority of this forum.

But you'll never hear anything against LCDs that are too big or computers that are excessively fast and use too much energy, I wonder why? People aren't going to put their own objects of desire on the chopping block and require justification, just others'.

 

[AdamK47]

You had some good rational reasoning with #1 but destroyed all credibility of the entire post with #2, #3, and #4. Good job sir.

 

[jhu]

A) Do you want it?

B) Can you afford it?

That's all that matters, who cares what everyone else thinks.

C) can you not bitch about how much it costs to fill up when gas goes up $5/gallon in a few years?

 

[jhu]

But you'll never hear anything against LCDs that are too big or computers that are excessively fast and use too much energy, I wonder why? People aren't going to put their own objects of desire on the chopping block and require justification, just others'.

No, but we do have issues with energy usage of these things. That's why TVs have energy star ratings and why Intel and AMD have been making their processors more energy efficient.

People tend to rail against SUVs because they are inherently not fuel-efficient. Now it's one thing to be free to buy whatever you want. However, the rest of us realize that petroleum is a non-renewable resource, that we send $500 billion a year outside of our borders to import oil, and that using more fuel == more pollution. Look at LA or Houston - their air quality sucks.

With regard to high-performance vehicles like Ferrari, Maserati, etc., those vehicles are so expensive and so rarely driven that their overall impact is miniscule. It's the same with racing. The yearly fuel usage of NASCAR is a drop in the ocean with regard to yearly overall fuel usage in this country.

 

[ElFenix]

Yes, and you never buy anything that's delivered on a truck. If truckers end up paying more they're just going to pass the cost on to the consumer. You'll end up paying for it anyways.

i'd rather it be allocated that way than allocated through whatever interest group happens to spend the most in washington

But you'll never hear anything against LCDs that are too big or computers that are excessively fast and use too much energy, I wonder why? People aren't going to put their own objects of desire on the chopping block and require justification, just others'.

fwiw, i don't think the taxes on electricity are high enough either.

i'm just asking you to pay full price for your goods rather than having the rest of us subsidize your oil habit.

 

[waffleironhead]

"SUV's justified..."

No need to justify anything good sir. If you can afford the cost then by all means go ahead and own one.

 

[angry hampster]

Good idea. A list would be helpful. Please let me know if I've left anything out.

SUV Pro: High ground clearance (for terrain issues), cargo capacity, towing capacity, passenger room, 4wd (often available),

SUV Con: Fuel efficiency, larger blind spots, high center of gravity (handling)

Minivan Pro: Interior cargo capacity (>SUV), passenger room

Minivan Con: Fuel efficiency (>SUV, but <CAR), medium-high center of gravity, larger blind spots, low ground clearance

Wagon Pro: Handling/fuel efficiency on par with CAR, cargo capacity, low center of gravity

Wagon Con: low ground clearance

CAR Pro: Handling, fuel efficiency, smallest blind spots

CAR Con: cargo/people capacity, lowest ground clearance

SUVs are the only vehicles available with 4WD. Good call.

 

[SparkyJJO]

typical right-wing POV; i can do whatever i want when i want, just don't let everyone else's freedoms get in my way.

Exactly. Your freedom ends where mine begins. And vise versa, mine ends where yours begins.

Neither my, nor your, nor exdeath's, nor anyone else's freedom is infringed upon regardless of the vehicle that you, I, or exdeath, or the OP decides to drive.

So therefore, someone whining because they don't like the vehicle that someone else drives, well, that person can can it :biggrin:

 

[MovingTarget]

SUVs are the only vehicles available with 4WD. Good call.

Proper trucks/pickups were not included in this comparison. They simply aren't relevant to the thread. The issue people have is the use of SUVs when cars, wagons, and minivans are better choices for passenger vehicles with extra interior cargo room. C'mon.

 

[Kirby]

I'd love a Bronco with a 460 in it if I could afford it.

 

[angry hampster]

Proper trucks/pickups were not included in this comparison. They simply aren't relevant to the thread. The issue people have is the use of SUVs when cars, wagons, and minivans are better choices for passenger vehicles with extra interior cargo room. C'mon.

Pretty much every major automaker offers sedans, coupes, or wagons with an all-wheel drive system.

 

[SparkyJJO]

pretty much every major automaker offers sedans, coupes, or wagons with an all-wheel drive system.

AWD != 4WD

Different designs, with different pros and cons, and different behaviors.