Only when the Big Three have milked all of the profit out of big trucks/SUV's (and gas becomes hugely expensive) will we see them go away. At the glacial pace such giant companies move, this won't be for some time.

Regarding hybrids, the Big Three doesn't want to re-tool in order to produce a stop-gap measure like hybrids due to their high cost and short product life cycle. They may do a half-hearted cooperative venture, but no total committment or anything. Same thing applies to converting production (and their customers) to more fuel-efficient cars -- not enough profit to justify the huge costs. While it may sound like a paranoid conspiracy-theorist talking, in the long term, the car guys need to be in agreement with the oil guys before the Next Big Thing. Without the infrastucture, anything other than gasoline won't work as a fuel source for automobiles.

I've said it before; based on my experience as an employee, American cars reflect the average American's tastes. The companies' management will not change based on the costs, and the customers will not change because they like them, regardless of fuel consumption. Only when SUV's become VERY expensive will we see a reluctant shift away from them.

 

...which are manipulated by advertising.

 

I agree. That's not to say what we buy is totally dependent on advertising but it is of great impact. Were it not there would not be so much money and creativity invested in it. Marlboros were a bad selling cigarette until they told us real cowboys smoke them. Big *** gas guzzlers are marketed similarly. Mini adds even are made to appeal to odd (in a good way ) ducks like us.

As with many things, in the end I blame the government for many things. In this case in many ways encouraging consumptive lifestypes and even rewarding them.

Tax breaks for efficient cars not necessary purchases of SUVs and H2s.

 

>the Big Three doesn't want to re-tool



I clearly noticed that when they introduced the new ImpalaSS with
a 4 speed automatic.

 

I agree with the advertising manipulation idea. Folks buy what they're told to buy (despite what they may think). Considering how the MINI is marketed, I shouldn't be allowed to own one -- I'm too old and nowhere near as stylish as the models in the marketing materials.

 

Ouch! That hits close to home. Would you believe the "motoring advisor" refused at first to take my order and said I needed to go to the Chevy dealer and get a Malibu?

 

I am usually a lurker instead of a active participant, but this thread just makes me laugh. It seems like another opportunity for the holier-than-thou crowd to push values of how a responsible citizen should behave. I am certainly not smart enough to characterize why all MINI owners purchase their cars. Why do people feel they are smart enough to characterize the entire segment of ANY consumer market.

People need to get off their high moral pedestal. If you want to drive a frugal vehicle, great! If you want to bike to work, awesome!! Worry about yourself and be an example of how you want to live life (within the rule of law of course ).

In the mean time, everyone have a wonderful day!!

 

We're just here to entertain ourselves in these off-topic threads. :smile:

 

What kenchan said... :smile:

 

Yeah, pretty much.

 

I don't mean this personally, ogrady, but I have to respond to the holier than thou statement. I'd like to add to a 'yeah, what they said' that there are serious dimensions beyond our banterings.

Summing up what I'd basically said in a post my view is it is people's right to drive whatever street legal vehicle they want. It's also my right to wonder why some vehicles appeal to those buying them. My main issue, though, is that many buying huge vehicles get tax breaks more fuel efficient ones don't. For the general public I think that is bass ackwards.

My understanding such breaks were meant to assist those buying trucks for work purposes. When SUVs began hitting the market they got truck classification, and sales were aided by those not needing such vehicles for their work getting the tax incentive to supersize. I can't remember which but there was even one small SUV (a Subaru?) that hiked it's suspension and wheelbase to qualify. More bass ackwards followed because the change making it more a tax advantage also resulted in poorer mileage.

IMO, that's bad government policy given geopolitics and disagreeing doesn't make me a moral supremist. I will continue to wonder why an on-road driver would choose an H2 when they could have a very fun BMW etc for the money. That's no different than my wondering why some people spell it catsup.

 

"Summing up what I'd basically said in a post my view is it is people's right to drive whatever street legal vehicle they want. It's also my right to wonder why some vehicles appeal to those buying them. My main issue, though, is that many buying huge vehicles get tax breaks more fuel efficient ones don't. For the general public I think that is bass ackwards."


I think you make my point. Who knows why a consumer would buy one. Maybe because they want to haul 2.2 kids, the newest do-dad from pottery barn, strap a full suspension bike to the back and take the whole bunch to their cabin in Vail... Maybe they only put it in 4WD so they can get up the driveway. Who knows... Further more, I don't think people should care why others buy whatever they buy. I don't think you are a bad person, I just think the question you are attempting to have answered is impossible because there are nearly infinite permutations. I believe people would rather just list SUV buyers as 'uncaring' because it is more convenient to label, than to actually figure out the answer.

"IMO, that's bad government policy given geopolitics and disagreeing doesn't make me a moral supremist. I will continue to wonder why an on-road driver would choose an H2 when they could have a very fun BMW etc for the money. That's no different than my wondering why some people spell it catsup."



Now, if your argument has morphed into the fact that the govt has bad policies and they should adjust them, maybe I'd buy that. However, be careful of the law of unintended consequences. Thousands of jobs are wrapped up in the production of cars. If you mess with any regulation, you may do more harm than good.

I do not wish to get into any 'geopolitical' discussion on this site, as I am fairly confident most people have firmly entrenched opinions. inioway, I hope you have a wonderful day.

BTW, its pronounced "Catch-up"

 

To all the Hummer, Escalade and other overly ego-ized soccer utility vehicles:

I drive a MINI. What are *you* compensating for?

 

Again, for those that like SUV's please buy GM. :smile:

 

I'm also rather late to this thread..... Besides Wanda, we also own a 1988 Isuzu Trooper (purchased new) and a 1991 Corvette (purchased new at hubby's mid-life crisis point).

When I bought Troopie the Trooper in 1988, it was as much a sensation to others as our MINIs are to everyone today. I got stopped constantly and was chatted up by people who were positively stunned that a gal like me was in such a high-profile (read: tall) and "big" truck.

I had to really talk hubby into buying the Trooper. He thought I was NUTS! It's a 4-speed automatic with 4-wheel drive, which he thought was overkill. I wanted it because I am an artist and I needed the spaciousness to deal with large artist's canvases.

Troopie has always averaged about 17-19 mpg and now has about 188K miles. Hubby LOVES using Troopie now as his daily-driver and rarely drives his 'Vette any longer. LOL!

However, his 'Vette has been a fantastically reliable car, never having any mechanical problems. The Bose stereo has been extremely crappy, and he had to make a repair to the a/c, but that is all. Plus, he's done all the upkeep and servicing of it himself. Get this: it averages 20-25 mpg!

The point to all of this is that we bought the Trooper, the Corvette, and the MINI because each in its time were fantastic values: good design, well-priced, and FUN!

It really upsets me that the two of the Big Three automakers (GM and Ford) cannot offer us more exciting, well-designed, high-performance and FUN cars! They've gotten into the truck/SUV rut, and are right back in the same trouble from the 70s, when the Japanese surpassed the US with its innovation and nimble response capability to market pressures.

I have to say that although I'm not crazy about the Chryslers, at least they're offering some pretty outrageous-looking vehicles. I hope GM and Ford can shift gears SOON and do the same! :smile:

/end rant!

edit: I have no idea how expensive gas will need to get before it causes folks to back off from buying gas-guzzlers! I'm surprised that the high prices here in Cali haven't seemed to make a dent in our gridlocked traffic patterns! WTF!!


Clover

 

It's a sunny sunday and I am still in front of my computer, but reading this thread made me wonder why this issue has been brought up. So if my jottings are incoherent or trod on toes I apologize in advance, but it's too nice outside to pore seriously over what I am typing. As kenchan suggested OT is for divertissement.

MINI vs SUV fuel economy:
I fretted over getting my MINI because of its relatively "poor" gas mileage. Then I realized I drive around 5000 miles a year so I would not be so affected by high prices at the pump (not sure what happened to my conscience over the environment). And I have been wanting a MINI since it was introduced--partly to remind me of when I owned a Mini and was young enough to enjoy it and everything else life had to offer. I read that hybrid SUVs get excellent mileage in town (even compared to a MINI because hybrids do especially well in the City cycle) so if I were concerned about fuel economy it would have made a better choice. So I got a car that might get worse fuel economy than an SUV.

Fossil fuels future:
Someone else on this thread posted a belief that predictions for running out of fuel have been disproven over the years. True. And it does seem likely that technology and economics will allow us to extract oil more efficiently in future. It is not yet cost-effective to do so even though we know how to do it (we waste as much oil as we extract, but that is due to market conditions). So perhaps we won't run out, but it may become more expensive. As others have noted REAL (not at our inflated dollars) increase in fuel prices might affect car buyers' decisions, but there might be many choices of vehicle types by then.

Carbon emissions:
Another issue related to fuel economy is emissions--hydrocarbons into our atmosphere. Cars in the rich nations have become very clean, but they still produce more emissions than industries. Inioway has an excellent point about lax government regulation--not only in financial incentives for SUV/trucks but in years of exemptions for emissions. Cleaning up SUV/trucks could help a lot and SUV/truck owners might not object to the extra cost. Yet another big contributor to hydrocarbons is old cars and yet many folks cannot afford new ones. Dunno what to do about that--it's getting to expensive to live some places that people have to commute long distances for work.

Owning an SUV/truck or car:
The Car Talk folks on NPR wondered about SUV/trucks for people who do not need them for work. They asked why anyone would want the inconvenience of driving around so much more metal than necessary when, for the rare foray to IKEA or the weekend in the country, it might be cheaper to rent a purpose-built vehicle than to own one all year. Renting purpose-built cars might make sense in most cases. Even though they are old codgers the "Tappett Brothers" like nimble cars.

Here in my town city government subdizes a "car share" program that lets people rent a car for a portion of a day (biggest car is a Prius). They are located in several garages. That is because a lot of people in my town don't own cars (we have a fairly extensive transit system that is deeply in debt). At a biz meeting last week 3 persons explained to me that they don't own cars because of the cost--several thousand a year that they can spend on fancy vacations. They told me if they need to drive someplace they can rent a car. Guess that would make sense for me too, but I am not that evolved yet.

And now I am going to waste time, money, fuel and our clean air by driving my MINI (instead of riding the bus--I don't own a bicycle) to lunch and to take some photos on a glorious day.

 

As for gas milage....

Motorcycle 30 mpg, one passenger 30 people miles per gallon.

Mini S divin hard 2 passengers. 24 MPG, just shy of 50 pmpg.

530i 4 people 20? mpg 80 pmpg.

Suburban 7 people, 9 MPG 63 pmpg.

So, depending on use, a Suburban can be more efficient than a Mini or a MC!

For technology,
if you want good efficiency with low green house gasses NOW, go to large electric power with very small diesel generation. The reasons are pretty simple. Electric motors have GREAT torque curves (the GM EV1 had over 1200 ft-lbs of torque at 0 RPM, but only 135 HP), and decoupling the diesel from the driveline allows you to run it at fixed, max efficiency RPM.
Why deisel? Know where we're gonna get our hydrogen? Natural gas! So when you do the math, there's a net increase in CO2 emissions due to conversion efficiency issues if you use a fuel cell driven by any hydrogen source other than created by electralosys (very power intensive), or by cracking steam in a nuclear reactor (actually, a very good idea that is probably impossible to implement before things get much, much worse). There's actually a demo project that almost got it right between either UPS or FedEx and an evironmental group! They;ve designed a mostly electric, deisel hybrid. No idling in the city, and it can run on full electric for things like backing to loading docks and the like. Saves gobs on energy.....

Some comments on free markets, gov intervention, and people's right to choose.
If you want a free market, go to the corner drug dealer. That's a free market. Our markets are far from free in ways not yet discussed. For autos, one of the largest levers in the marketplace in indirect and direct subsidization, and stranded costs. So, if gas pricing had all the money that goes into road construction and all the other associated costs of PROVIDING a driven mile, the average size and number of cars would both be lower. Amtrack has to pay for it's tracks. Ford doesn't. We invest in this infrastructure for many different reasons (economic capacity, jobs creation, pork barrel fund allocations, etc oh, and transprotation too)
We also leave tons of costs associated with driving (green house gas, health etc) stranded to be paid by other sources. So we pay for the cost of delivery of gas, not it's total "life cycle cost" where the cost of delivery, and the cost of consiquences of use, are factored into the price so an honest cost/benefit analysis decision can be made. Lucky us for cheap gas, unlucky people in LA with asthma.
This stuff starts to bump into gov policy and social engineering. Contrary to what many belive, we DO NOT have free markets here (and this is a good thing). I don't think someone should be able to pour mercury into a river that becomes drinking water, and pretty much everyone who forms or participates in a societal structure agree that there are some rules that we all have to abide by. This is the social contract, and the compramise we all make that by adhearing to some rules we form a better group where we derive more benefit than going without the agreement. So then, we've all agreed that there are things that are APPROPRIATE for regulation, control and prevention in order to protect the interests of the society as a whole. This is where having polacies that counter short term interests of convienience come to play. A gas guzzler tax is a perfect example. As is a mortgage interest tax deduction. I have no problem LEADING average citizen opinion if the issue is significant enough. Do doing tax changes or market regulation to reign in massive energy efficiency is a pretty good idea to me. (even if I pay more at the pump, or have to pay a premium for large displacment or heavy vehicles, or get an energy star rebate!) Right thing to do, not to easy.


So what would Mat the dictator do?

1) Penalize vehicle weight.
2) Penalize vehicle gas milage.
3) Reward creation of hybrid technology, tax brakes for manufacturers, tax rebates for buyers, reduced reg fees for owners).
4) Increase gas taxes. Give money to deficit reduction, alt energy R&D and to pay tax incentives for using hybrids.
5) Accelerate clean (low sulfer)deisels. This means catalysts last longer. The sulpher poisens them now.....

People will still be able to indulge themselves by getting what they want and use it how they see fit, but the costs of such decisions would be more alligned with the impacts that these decisions have. I think a world where we can do pretty much what we want within bounds of harm to others, where we stand up and pay the costs of such decisions, without having others pay for my actions, would be a much better place for us all to live, AND we'd have less cars on the road, with better MPG.

Matt

 

Oh good...then I can FINALLY get my MINI One D!!! (...bet it still won't be available in EB though. Grrrrr.....)

 

In CA, we can't even buy the deisels that you can get in the rest of the country!

 

Thank you for a post I basically agree with. I say Amen! to the correct statement above.

Agreed: no two people buy the same product for the same reason. Advertising is all about finding ways of clumping different beings into buying groups often due to shared affection for image. So, we can have clues. For instance, why do men tend to buy Marlboro cigarettes?

Agreed: there are always unintended results for government policies. My mom died from lung cancer but one reason I am not against huge taxes on cigarettes is the consequence to tobacco farmers. Regarding motor vehicle choice, that does not mean they should not be examined including consequences for workers. Of course, a consequence of not creating more fuel efficient competitive vehicles for emerging technologies may have more of a long term negative affect on automotive workers beyond GM.

Sign Me,

Former owner of Izuzu Trooper and Chevy Blazer

 

She calles it the "Plumber and Pipefitters of Auschwitz" argument. Can't close the concentration camp, think of the lost jobs. It's a nasty way to make the point, but not stopping doing something bad because of the harm to those that benefit from it is a pretty poor argument, don't you think?

and economically, if Ford or GM went belly up, the economy (and the workers) would take quite a hit. but in industries with too much capacity, if all the players stay in the game, then no one makes any money at all! The macro effects would be short term (no, I'm not denying that many would suffer, some for a long time), the economic health would be improved overall. Sad thing is, they won't go belly up, they'll just transfer obligation (like pensions) to the gov..... Now that united did it, any other big company would be an idiot not too! Then we all pay the bill, again......

Sigh......

matt

 

Let me correct myself, Dr. O. I am for eventual steep rises in taxes on cigarettes for many reasons. Listing them would turn into stealing the thread. What I didn't state well at all is that my view is that whatever small tobacco farmers should be granted assistance (possibly partly by that tax revenue) to transition to another crop. Looking back I know that's not what I wrote so thanks for pointing out the needed correction. (As if my opinion carries much weight. )

Back to another strand within this thread, I've been thinking over ogrady's statement about unintended consequences to workers if tax incentives for SUVs were eliminated. That tax incentives helpful to people needing trucks for work has created incentives for those not needing hulk vehicles to buy them is an unintended consequence. That, of course, is unless one buys into it being a conspiracy to make people more reliant on fossil fuel. I'm not going there but that seems the only reason it squares as intended consequence.

 

Well, I have a Mini and a full-sized Chevy half ton 4x4 pickup. I commute with the Mini, make shopping runs with the Mini, and sometimes motor just for fun in the Mini. I plow snow in winter with the truck, haul hay, grain, compost, firewood, maple sap, and even water last winter when my waterline froze. Can't do those things in the Mini.

We also raise sheep. Ever try to get the smell of ewe pee out of upholstery? No thanks; a truck fits our lifestyle rather well.

But as for why city dwelling Americans are so fascinated with the huge SUVs and trucks, look at the marketing. Effective marketing plays on the genuine desires of the buying public, and many of the most successful marketing campaigns highlight our need for power and control. I believe words like "threat" and "intimidation factor" were prominent at the last Detroit show.

There are several other vehicles that work well for kids and assorted family stuff: minivans and some wagons like the Outback, Passat, etc. I think the SUV buyer is looking for something more than mere practicality.

Pete

 

I'm not a big fan of threads like these, but I've thought about this one a lot since I first noticed it and wanted to add my two cents, for what it's worth.

Our other vehicle:

Why?


I can't think of any 4 cylinders that will haul 2+ adults, 300 pounds worth of dogs, and a set of luggage. We also do a lot of home improvement which means a trip to Lowe's or Home Depot at least once a week. Unfortunately, we cannot afford to have 3 vehicles so that we can leave the Avalanche in the garage for when we "need" it. I do not worry a lot about the price of gasoline because I consider it a neccessity, like groceries and utlities. I do not do much shopping around for gas or groceries because I have to buy them regardless.

For those of you who dislike SUVs and trucks, what do you do when you need to move furniture or the like? What will you do the next time you move?

When discussing this thread with my husband the other day, he brought up a good point. A lot of people feel that SUVs and trucks are bad for the environment and waste too much gas. For those of you that feel that way, what do you think of the members here who race and autocross their MINIs? The gas and tires used for motor sports probably isn't any better for the environment. Also, one of the slogans for MINI is "Let's Motor". I can't imagine the number of us here that must be guilty of taking our MINIs motoring for the pure fun of it. Doesn't that make us just as bad as the people who drive trucks and SUVs?

 

I couldn't agree more

Oops, what's wrong with me? Where's my sense of moral superiority? This is outrageous, absolutely outrageous.

I think I've go for a drive to colam my nerves.