To all of you who want to impose your view of SUVs on other people. IE they are wasteful and we shouldn't be able to waste resources, etc. Just remember if you get your way... what is stopping some other group banning something you want or appreciate. The purchase of SUVs or MINIs results because of a free economic selling of resources and materials. So if you are a socialist ban away, but be honest about your socialism! To those who see right wing conspiracy theories everywhere. I believe that the point of this thread was a left wing conspiracy... ie that SUVs are destroying the planet. Oh, I forgot you socialists don't believe in freedom of expression either. The North Korean news agency is your only opinion....

Remember the chant give peace a chance... too bad all the chanters will gladly give yours away.

jc

Why do we continuously start this stupid SUV bashing thread... let's agree to stick to things we can agree on... IE the MINI is a great car! Not because it is fuel efficient, but because it represents our individualism and our freedom to motor.

 

Nothing will improve with an oil-monger for president. Oh well, at least SUV owners will be happy once Bush takes over Iraq.

 

Yes, just like we took over Kuwait... oil-monger? Please sell your MINI and buy an electric car that way you won't be hypocritical, and you can truly be superior to us.

jc

 

Why is someone who is "anti-SUV" automatically some left-wing extreminst or socialist?

Personlly, I think most people who buy SUVs buy them for the wrong reasons, and make a bad decision in doing so. I guess I would consider myself "anti-SUV." However, that doens't mean I'm on some crudsade to make them illegal or have them removed from the marketplace. They definitely do serve a purpose, and for many people are the best choice of a vehicle, and that's fine. In my opinion, the SUV-backlash should be pretty much what it is now-an attempt at social awareness. Get the word out there that SUVs really arenlt a very good choice for many people for a variety of reasons. Hopefully in doing so, some people who might otherwise buy an SUV will decide not to. Where's the harm in that?

PigLick

 

Go ahead and judge me for smoking my tires RCristiano. I trash those things and love every minute of it. I don't care what impact all those tires have on the environment because I can afford new ones. And that's my point exactly: that people are selfish and inconsiderate, myself included. SUV owners are just a little more conspicous, that's all.

To me, the truly disturbing factor is not the fuel and steel consumption, but rather the fact that so many people prefer the visibility and crash-mass advantages of SUV's and are willing to sacrifice the safety of the general public for their own benefit.

 

Well,... now that we've solved the world's problems,...


Let's get back to MOTORING, eh :smile:

 

Amen Peng!!!

Except last thought... if you wife and child are in a SUV and the squirrel ant... in Death race is racing a Civic at 110 on slick roads at night. I guess that I would suggest that by putting them in a SUV that I was making a very good selfish decision. If the MINI were as dangerous as a Ford Pinto I don't think many of us would be rushing out to buy one. Therefore, the safety the SUV buys for his family might be very easy to justify. So ... again, don't make the decision for other people. We all have reasons, if you want to view yourself as better than the SUV driver fine with me, I like my soon to arrive MINI, but please don't deny them the choice of making their own decision that might be justifiably different than yours. The reason why I view you as socialists is not because you are aware of it, but because that is what you are when you want to limit others freedom for the good of the society. We can get into a never ending debate about right wrong or anything else. Let's just motor and be friends.

 

XP, no one has even suggested we outlaw or restrict SUV usage so please quit throwing around your "socialist" comments.
By the way, we limit others' freedom for the good of society every day when we observe things like speed limits, etc.

 

well put Vespa, LockjawDavis, and PigLick. Nobody wants to make them illegal. I think we're just all adovating more responsible behavior. As for the Death race at 110mph, in general I'd still want my family in a car. Cause if an SUV got hit at freeway speeds by a car doing 110mph it'd have a higher probability of flipping over than a car would. I've been in an accident that was similar to that and luckily the car in front of me did a 720 and stayed on all four wheels. However, the newer Ford SUV's (Explorer, Expedition, etc.) and the Volvo I have heard have better addressed these safety issues. Not only are those vehicles better from a safety standpoint. But, they also seem to be more "compatible" with the safety features of normal vehicles (i.e. bumper heights).

 

I don't know why the word socialism is so negative to some of you. You all spew socialistic ideas and then don't like the label. If you don't like the label think about the concepts you throw out. I happen to think that speed limits are purely socialism. Look at the autobahns in Germany... they have a lower death per mile rate than our interstates... why is that? If it is true and I assure you it is why do we have speed limits on our super freeways.... think about it and you will know what socialism is.

jc

 

I love trucks and SUV's when they are used for their intended purpose.

If you don't intend to haul, go off road or tow, well, trucks are for schmucks! The kind that ride around Long Island on their cell phones with their LL Bean boots to pick up a latte at Starbucks while hardly keeping an eye on the road is where the real backlash comes from.

I thought we left the barges of the 60's and 70's behind, but the 4,800 pound Cadillacs have become 6,500 pound Cadillacs!

They do make nice moving pylons. And when they roll over in th rain, I just really laugh!

 

Warning, this is long... :smile:

A few people above mentioned a "phantom" technology argument to why SUV's are the way they are. This is not a sound argument. The combustion engines of today are still using the same inefficient design that was invented over 100 years ago. If American auto makers spent equal R & D dollars on fuel efficiency as luxury items in vehicles, we wouldn't be in the grave energy crisis we are in. But you can't put absolute blame the auto firms. They were only acting in their best interests and why shouldn't they?

Tremendous headway for the birth of the modern day SUV was made in the 80's. The lack of pro-activity with government regulations on autos and not all passenger vehicles (it would hurt the economy) made it very lucrative for auto firms to market trucks to consumers. Lower cost to build, and a perceived need of "4x4", "AWD" and "CARGO ROOM" lead to this SUV avalanche (pun intended). Remember the gas guzzler tax imposed for Auto's during the 80's? Every SUV sans the Rav-4 and perhaps the CRV would qualify for this tax.

It took complacent US auto firms to lose market share when they ignored the increase in gasoline prices in the 70's. Opportunistic Japaneese auto makers invented cars which sipped fuel and made their billions by being reliable and economical. History is repeating itself. Toyota and Honda have awesome hybrids I drove both which are admittedly barely adequate when accelerating( so were their ancestor vehicles in the 70's) but are of solid build quality. During my 20 minute test drive in the city, I avg 42 MPG! AMAZING! this time, though, BMW has hedged their bets with the MINI. Good show! I bought the Passat 4 years ago, the most aerodynamic 4 door sedan at the time and in a few days I will own the car with arguably the best fun to drive : fuel efficient ratio ever created. The price isn't bad either! :smile: SUV's will get 40 MPG someday, but the American automakers will have to be forced to produce and market them, like they were forced to produce and market the SUV in the first place.

 

>>I don't know why the word socialism is so negative to some of you. You all spew socialistic ideas and then don't like the label. If you don't like the label think about the concepts you throw out. I happen to think that speed limits are purely socialism. Look at the autobahns in Germany... they have a lower death per mile rate than our interstates... why is that? If it is true and I assure you it is why do we have speed limits on our super freeways.... think about it and you will know what socialism is.
>>
>>jc


If you mean a socialist as one who believes in socialism (as defined below). Nope, I didn't see any socialist remarks. I'm not a socialist. I'm just advocating more responsible behavior not the distribution and/or administration of resources. As for the Autobahn comment, SUV's aren't as popular as they are here in U.S. But, yes a highway full of SUV's running as fast as possible would be a scary thing since they are not designed for high speed...


Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1837
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

 

>>What is it about MINIs that seems to attract these right-wing kooks who find "conspiracies" under every rock they turn over? I've only visited this site a few times, but it seems like they're in every thread.
>>
>>Just my imagination or what?
>>

Agreed. But they're our right-wing kooks, so I guess we have to love them just the same

 

The problem with SUV's is that people who buy them drive them just like they used to drive their cars and forget that as large trucks, they have completely different, and inferior, driving dynamics as concerns braking and handling and require an entirely different approach to controlling them.

Since they don't stop as well, they tend to hit things (such as other cars) inflicting significant damage to other vehicles due to their stupidity. Also, the guardrails on modern roadways are of a height designed to keep a vehicle in its lane when struck. Unfortunately, when a SUV hits a guardrail, the vehicle has a much higher tendency to ride over the railing or flip/roll over at which point its occupants will not be doing well at all. Finally, the false sense of security one has with a 4x4 SUV usually results in the driver exceeding a prudent speed in poor weather only to be caught out when he realizes that four wheel drive does not give you added traction when stopping and the high center of gravity surely will not help you in an emergency handling sitiation.

It always amazes me to see how SUV's are the first to get stuck on the side of the road during bad weather without fail - simply because their drivers are clueless as to how to control a 5,000 lb. truck.

I know this sounds a lot like preaching, but if you want a four wheel drive vehicle with good handling dynamics, there are lots of fine vehicles out there from Mercedes to Audi to Volvo to Subaru, any of which are a far better choice and actually cost about the same. I really don't take particular issue with the fuel mileage thing but it does seem absurd for folks to commute alone in these behemoths. Oh, and by the way, a Hummer H1 only seats 4 - the same as my MINI.

Sorry - I had to vent. MOTOR ON!

 

>SUV's will get 40 MPG someday, but the American automakers will have to be >forced to produce and market them, like they were forced to produce and market >the SUV in the first place.

SUV's have alot of disadvantages:

I'm no engineer, but it'd be a miracle if a midsize-to-fullsize SUV could get 30mpg, let alone 40mpg on current technology. Moving that kind of mass against that kind of inerta, mechanical friction, and aerodynamic drag (esp. at the 80-90 mph of the given expressway), 40mpg is a pipedream. Heck, I'd run naked through the streets if most of these trucks got 20mpg driving straight-and-level, no wind, at 55mph.

There are some promising developments like Hybrid powertrains, CVTs, efficient Direct Injection diesel engines. Still, that'd only net maybe a 50% improvement for these trucks (say from 15mpg to 22mpg), at which point you're in the EXACT SAME SPOT you'd be in if you started by buying a minivan or a car in the first place.

:smile: my $.02

BTW, I'm a Republican, too. Not a liberal bone in my body, really...

 

Jimbo by arguing that people should not get SUVs are you not (There is a full grown attack on SUVs going on by people in this country to outlaw SUVs) saying that you know how resources should be distributed... ie no SUVs for people who don't need them. Let's define those who don't need them. The people with money and the desire to own them, when they are not me or someone I approve of owning them. The ***** were socialists and they didn't just worry about distribution of resources they burned books, ie ideas were attacked. Only good ideas are allowed. This country is a great country because of freedom, and the right to own property. There will always be a conflict between freedom and what is best for society. Our country is great because we historically tended to err on the side of freedom, but the socialists try to get the country to err on the side of what is best for society. The socialists can never win be saying you can't do something. So they choose you can do this because of this great harm you do. Trust me the end goal is the same. People parrot these arguments, and while they are not necessarily socialists the concepts are and they are aiding that cause. We have reached a time where we are getting dangerously close to no longer siding with freedom, but with the good of the state. When that happens freedom will be gone, just like it is in the socialists countries of Europe... can anyone say France!

Sorry to beat this dead pony I am going to go on vacation and maybe I will mellow.... Plus when I get back my car will be here and I will be too busy to read MCO for awhile. Let's get together and Motor and share our love of a great little car.

jc

 

Spoken by someone who has clearly no clue what "socialism" means.

Since the dawn of civilization, rules (and by necessity, rules restrict freedom) have been implemented to preserve the greater good. That does not make these cultures "socialist." We are not talking economics, so please quit with the knee-jerk rantings about "socialists" until you can figure out what it is you are trying to say.

Anyhow, I'm bordering on "flamey" here. Enjoy your vacation-hope it's somewhere warm.

_________________
2003 Cooper/IndiBlue/AllPackages/Sunroof

 

>>This is completely rediculous. If you're going to use TIME as your basis for arguement, at least balance it with a publication that isn't blatantly left wing.
>>

MIT Technology Review had an article a couple months ago on making cars more efficient, and how the automotive industry is not willing to raise the cost of cars for it. It talked specifically about several technologies and explained what it would take to bring it to market. It specifically talks about a set of technologies that would move SUVs to 40+ mpg.

http://www.technologyreview.com/arti...chetti1102.asp - unfortunately you need a subscription to see the actual content of the article and I've already recycled my print copy.

>>Who here lived in this huge blizzard over in the northeast? Tell me how well your mini did in that snow while those SUVs drove past you effortlessly.
>>

Actually, I drove through the blizzard from southern PA to MA during the storm. The only problem with the Mini was not enough ground clearance. I went through snow drifts. Me, subaru's and jeeps were the only things really on the road. And I saw a good number of jeeps stuck -- having 4 wheel drive does not help if you don't know how to drive in the snow. The Mini with traction control is great is in the snow - much better than a lot of other vehicles I've driven (including the farm truck).

>>Show me a minivan with the consistent excellence of design found in the Lincoln Navigator and I'll consider it. The fact of the matter is SUVs are just better cars to drive.
>>
And most are not actually more useful than a good station wagon. Get a BMW 3 or 5 series station wagon - better mileage, same carrying capacity, safer, better handling. Probably 80+ percent of SUV drivers would be better served by a good station wagon - but this is a number I'm generating out of thin air.


>>SUV drivers are all selfish, apparently. Wow, we've come so far. Stereotypes are all but gone from our society. Hooray for us.
>>
How about that SUV's are less socially friendly? They block visibility. They do more damage to others in accidents. They consume more resources. They take up more space (which is Boston where there is a parking shortage _is_ an unfriendly act.)


Not meaning to come across as aggressive to you, it is just that you put forth a number of good comments in one post that made it an ideal post to reply to.

 

xpcdoojk, nice clarification of your perspective. I can't speak completely for anyone else. but, believe it or not I actually believe in much of what you just said. that's the great thing about being an American. I can disagree with you and so can a whole bunch of other people (see all of the previous posts). But, I'm not going to think that you are any less of an American. Personally, I know that I'm not always right. Especially, when my beliefs start to infringe upon the rights of others. Which is why I pointed out in a previous post that I believe we just want people to act more responsibly. NOT, to force them act responsibly through the use of government intervention by any means (I think that's what you meant about socialism). I still believe that people should have the right to by an SUV (just as many of the other posts have stated). But, I think that as a culture we have a large proportion of people who are too selfish. Ask anyone who owns an SUV and uses it to drive themselves to work by themselves; 1) if they want to ruin the air we all breath, 2) consume more resources than the rest of us, or 3) possibly kill someone else in a smaller vehicle... And I'm sure that they would obviously say no. Me, I believe that we should live by example. I'm going to buy an SUV or a Mini van some time soon. But, I'm also responsible enough to know that I'll use a smaller commuter vehicle to drive myself (and my carpool) to and from work. I don't want to force someone else to live their lives like me (by voting for some law that restricts what little personal freedoms we have left). But, I will point out to those I care about that there might be a better way of doing things. My sister for example has some huge Chevy truck that gets about 15mpg with mostly highway driving. She spends over $500/month on gas, $500/month for the truck payments, and who knows how much on insurance. Is this responsible? That's a personal opinion. But, I'll give her my opinion on how with that same amount of money she could have a smaller car that would cost less to own, less to drive AND will be more comfortable for her and her two kids on their daily commute. Will I think any less of her if she doesn't see things my way... sure I will (I'm just as self righteous as the next person). Will I think it should be outlawed? NO. So, before people start going around labeling each other by some political label that becomes extremely negative because of the context within which it is used... Just remember, it IS American to have opposing views.

BTW, LockjawDavis, you're right. That point of view didn't gel with me until one of my high school teachers told me this once..."Freedom has rules and restrictions. Anarchy doesn't. And when you have Anarchy it will eventually become tyranny because you won't have any rules or restrictions (or government) to protect you." Wow, I actually remember back that far. weird... Maybe I've had too much caffine...

 

This is one polarized thread.
Does the vehicle one drives determine their identity?
I hope not?
I do not chose to drive an SUV, a station wagon, a truck, a muscle car or family sedan.
I drive a MINI.
I don't have anything against those other vehicles in fact I have owned one of each of them at some time.
I drive a MINI because I want to. I expect most of the people who drive those vehicles do so for the same purpose.
I am happy for those daring folks who want to go busting thru the snow on those few days during the year when a 4-wheel drive is necessary to get around.
Myself that's what sick leave is for and I chose to curl up with a few favorite books or old movies and a cup of hot chocolate. (With my MINI curled up in a nice warm garage)

 

From The Onion


PS, it's not always the right-wing kooks with conspiracies. Remember the left-wing kook and her vast Republican conspiracy theory ?

_________________
http://www.globalsecurity.org/

 

Boy oh boy. What a thread. Let me say up front that I am an aging, left wing liberal cynic, a big-oil consipiracy theorist, and extremely troubled by the implications of our country's extraordinary dependence on off-shore oil.

I am also somewhat of a libertarian. Freedom of choice and all that. We drive a 92 vanagon and a new mcs both of which get pretty poor mileage.

Back in Persian Gulf I, we saved Kuwait from the evil invaders while ignoring incredible human suffering/genocide in Africa and E. Europe. Anyone who thinks our foreign policy is not dictated by maintaining an oil supply is simply naive (and we can get lost in a debate about that.) That said, and getting beyond all the branding/labeling/finger pointing, any deep thinking MUST conclude that
-the US consumption of oil per capita is off-the-chart relative to the rest of the world,
-it is not sustainable and has long term implications for our economy (and for those believers, the environment).
-it is simply immoral to wage war and sacrifice young people to protect oil interests without saying 'we will go to ANY length to make sure it doesn't happen again.' Any length.

And we haven't said that. In fact, since Persian Gulf I, we have said 'we don't care.' The supply and demand of cars and trucks have reflected an utter lack of concern for some serious issues. There is no public MANDATE to make energy independence a national priority. We simply don't care enough about our relationship to energy and its very real implications. Real concern would mean we saying (collectively) that we must evaluate every aspect of energy consumption...not just cars. That is not happening.

I heard someone say that, if they we were Osama and company, they would simply take out the oil tankers. Take them all out and watch what happens here. If prices spiked to $4-5/gallon, 75% of the country would have some serious thinking to do about what they drive and when and how they drive it.

And make no mistake, the technology is there. Any car manufacture is capable of making a 60hp motor that can get 60-80mpg. Enough to propel a 2000lb, 4 seat car at highway speed. We aren't demanding it, so they don't supply it.

And I thought this was about Time magazine.
:smile:

 

>>>PS, it's not always the right-wing kooks with conspiracies. Remember the left-wing kook and her vast Republican conspiracy theory ?<<<

I do, but she doesn't post on every thread on MCO.

By the way, The Onion link is hilarious (they always are).

_________________
2003 Cooper/IndiBlue/AllPackages/Sunroof

 

"But what if I need my SUV for sporting or utilitating?"