Forums | MacLife

Jehannum · 2003-02-11 11:25 am

As I was listening to the rebroadcast of Car Talk last night, a woman called in, saying she was pregnant with twins, to go with the one child she already had. So now she and her husband were looking for a car that could handle 3 child seats. But she didn't want an SUV (despite the fact that 'SUV' is a catchall term for vehicles in a wide range of sizes, shapes, and purposes) because she was 'morally opposed to SUV's'.

What about an SUV is there to be morally opposed to? That they get lower fuel economy than other vehicles? Well, yeah, but that truck that brought in your produce gets lower fuel mileage, but it's good at hauling produce. Maybe it's the big profits that automakers get on them, but people want these vehicles. A big SUV that gets lower fuel mileage is good at hauling people, or cargo, in a size that's not ludicrous. A smaller SUV can get better fuel mileage, but carry fewer people. There are tradeoffs in any vehicle, but this fruitcake wanted a car 'with character, like an old VW Microbus'. But she didn't want a current minivan. So you're morally opposed to SUV's, for unnamed reasons, but the only ones that make any sense are pollution and fuel usage, but you'll take a craptastic microbus, that would have to be 20 years old, with NO emissions control, NO advanced safety installations for those kids, NONE of the advantages in efficiency that have been made in the last 25 years for power and fuel mileage, so she can have a car with some character? She could get a BMW Isetta, too, that's got character. Her other choice was a Volvo Wagon. An Old Volvo Wagon. Weren't those the vehicles that were specifically designed to have NO character at all? The whole call was stupid, and this ditz had no idea of the amazing hypocrisy of her idiotic search for 'character'. Lots of things make me roll my eyes at the radio, but this was one of the worst. She finally ended up being told to get a Honda Oddysey. Whether she'll actually do it is another question.

registered_user · 2003-02-11 11:40 am

Her reasons may vary, but they may also include these:

1: Fuel economy. If you use the car to commute, a station wagon is a better choice.

2: Danger. Rollovers are more likely in an SUV, expeically with many people or cargo in them

3: Poor emissions. SUVs are held to a lower emissions standard

4: Road hazard. On today's traffic-packed roads, SUVs are difficult to see around which leads to decreased visibility, and heightens the possibilty for accidents.

5: SUVs are more likely to kill the commuter in the Civic/Focus/Tercel/you get the point if you rear end them.

The Great Prophet Omega · 2003-02-11 11:43 am

5: SUVs are more likely to kill the commuter in the Civic/Focus/Tercel/you get the point if you rear end them.

A Taurus wagon, or any large car has the mass to squash an econoboox.

Jehannum · 2003-02-11 11:47 am

Her reasons may vary, but they may also include these:

1: Fuel economy. If you use the car to commute, a station wagon is a better choice.

2: Danger. Rollovers are more likely in an SUV, expeically with many people or cargo in them

3: Poor emissions. SUVs are held to a lower emissions standard

4: Road hazard. On today's traffic-packed roads, SUVs are difficult to see around which leads to decreased visibility, and heightens the possibilty for accidents.

5: SUVs are more likely to kill the commuter in the Civic/Focus/Tercel/you get the point if you rear end them.

Did you read what I posted?

She was willing to sacrifice ALL of those things for the 'character' of an old VW microbus! If you think emissions aren't stringent today, you should hook up an old aircooled Vdub to an emissions meter!

A Vdub microbus also *might* manage the average MPG for SUVs - 20.7 miles per gallon - if she goes down hill, with the motor off.

The dangers of driving a 30 year old microbus are *far* greater than those of a modern SUV.

registered_user · 2003-02-11 11:48 am

5: SUVs are more likely to kill the commuter in the Civic/Focus/Tercel/you get the point if you rear end them.
A Taurus wagon, or any large car has the mass to squash an econoboox.

Granted, so does a 72 Caddy. But SUVs typically have higher bumpers, and econoboxes typically have lower ones.

For the record, SUVs don't really bother me any more. The people that get them to commute I view as poor stewards, but whatever. I just thought I'd list a few popular reasons to not like SUVs. Looking back on it, it does look like flamebait though. Oh well.

registered_user · 2003-02-11 11:50 am

Did you read what I posted?

She was willing to sacrifice ALL of those things for the 'character' of an old VW microbus! If you think emissions aren't stringent today, you should hook up an old aircooled Vdub to an emissions meter!

A Vdub microbus also *might* manage the average MPG for SUVs - 20.7 miles per gallon - if she goes down hill, with the motor off.

The dangers of driving a 30 year old microbus are *far* greater than those of a modern SUV.

Yes, the woman in question is a trendy ass -- without doubt. I wasn't trying to defend her. I should have been more specific back there, I didn't mean to set flame bait.

The Great Prophet Omega · 2003-02-11 11:58 am

My SUV is a mid-sized(smallest of them at that) I wanted a Subaru but it was just too small.
So I bought only as much truck as I needed.
Hell, it get's better milage than my wife's Porsche.

I suppose that woman thinks an old Volvo consumes less fuel than a new one with fuel injection and a combuston control computer.

Gatchaman · 2003-02-11 12:02 pm

Her reasons may vary, but they may also include these:

1: Fuel economy. If you use the car to commute, a station wagon is a better choice.

2: Danger. Rollovers are more likely in an SUV, expeically with many people or cargo in them

3: Poor emissions. SUVs are held to a lower emissions standard

4: Road hazard. On today's traffic-packed roads, SUVs are difficult to see around which leads to decreased visibility, and heightens the possibilty for accidents.

5: SUVs are more likely to kill the commuter in the Civic/Focus/Tercel/you get the point if you rear end them.
Did you read what I posted?

She was willing to sacrifice ALL of those things for the 'character' of an old VW microbus! If you think emissions aren't stringent today, you should hook up an old aircooled Vdub to an emissions meter!

You're answering your own question right here: she's a smurfing idiot. The VW microbus was the biggest piece of smurf that ever ran on 4 wheels.

She has an extreme emotional attachment to an inanimate object based on completely arbitrary parameters. Arguing the real world benefits/problems is like talking to the wall.

[Tycho?] · 2003-02-11 1:16 pm

I think SUVs should be illegal, or be made vastly more fuel efficient.

Fuel efficiency has decresed over the past 10 years or so. DECREASED.

Despite their size, they are unsafe, and will often cause a false sense of security.

If you want to hold more people, get a station wagon. If you want to haul cargo, get a pickup truck.

There is no way most people need SUVs, they're just a status symbol. While stupid, i wouldn't have as much as a problem with it as I do if they were just buying expensive cars. But these cars also burn fuel which can be better used on other things.

But, getting a VW mircobus instead is not the answer at all.

AutoJC · 2003-02-11 1:22 pm

Her reasons may vary, but they may also include these:

1: Fuel economy. If you use the car to commute, a station wagon is a better choice.

2: Danger. Rollovers are more likely in an SUV, expeically with many people or cargo in them

3: Poor emissions. SUVs are held to a lower emissions standard

4: Road hazard. On today's traffic-packed roads, SUVs are difficult to see around which leads to decreased visibility, and heightens the possibilty for accidents.

5: SUVs are more likely to kill the commuter in the Civic/Focus/Tercel/you get the point if you rear end them.
Did you read what I posted?

She was willing to sacrifice ALL of those things for the 'character' of an old VW microbus! If you think emissions aren't stringent today, you should hook up an old aircooled Vdub to an emissions meter!

A Vdub microbus also *might* manage the average MPG for SUVs - 20.7 miles per gallon - if she goes down hill, with the motor off.

The dangers of driving a 30 year old microbus are *far* greater than those of a modern SUV.

Not to mention the fact that Microbuses are hella slow, and they at one time were the rollover champions of the road.

Yeah, and Consumer Reports constantly rated Microbuses "Not Acceptable" because they would fail a variety of tests, including handling and braking.

Volswagen Microbuses only have "character" for brain-dead hippies. twisted

AutoJC · 2003-02-11 1:36 pm

"]I think SUVs should be illegal, or be made vastly more fuel efficient.

Fuel efficiency has decresed over the past 10 years or so. DECREASED.

Despite their size, they are unsafe, and will often cause a false sense of security.

If you want to hold more people, get a station wagon. If you want to haul cargo, get a pickup truck.

Pickup trucks are just as unsafe as SUV's. About the only advantage of one is that is is cheaper.

There is no way most people need SUVs, they're just a status symbol. While stupid, i wouldn't have as much as a problem with it as I do if they were just buying expensive cars. But these cars also burn fuel which can be better used on other things.

But, getting a VW mircobus instead is not the answer at all.

You can't force people to your way of thinking regarding what to buy, at least not in the USA.

so · 2003-02-11 1:45 pm

You can't force people to your way of thinking regarding what to buy, at least not in the USA.

Tell that to the auto industry - they think they can, and they do.

tievsky2 · 2003-02-11 1:58 pm

so's logic seems to be, "people aren't buying what I think they should buy, therefore they're being manipulated by the auto industry!"

[Tycho?] · 2003-02-11 1:59 pm

"]I think SUVs should be illegal, or be made vastly more fuel efficient.

Fuel efficiency has decresed over the past 10 years or so. DECREASED.

Despite their size, they are unsafe, and will often cause a false sense of security.

If you want to hold more people, get a station wagon. If you want to haul cargo, get a pickup truck.
Pickup trucks are just as unsafe as SUV's. About the only advantage of one is that is is cheaper.

There is no way most people need SUVs, they're just a status symbol. While stupid, i wouldn't have as much as a problem with it as I do if they were just buying expensive cars. But these cars also burn fuel which can be better used on other things.

But, getting a VW mircobus instead is not the answer at all.
You can't force people to your way of thinking regarding what to buy, at least not in the USA.

I know pickup trucks are not safer than SUVs, I dont reacal saying that. I said that they are used to carry large loads.

I dont seek to force people into my way of thinking, however we have limited amounts of oil, and burning it has environmental consequenses. Its best to conserve it if possible, and in the case of SUVs, it most certainly is possible.

Jehannum · 2003-02-11 2:00 pm

"]There is no way most people need SUVs, they're just a status symbol. While stupid, i wouldn't have as much as a problem with it as I do if they were just buying expensive cars. But these cars also burn fuel which can be better used on other things.

I dunno, if somebody wants to buy an SUV, does it really hurt the rest of us? I mean, if we want to get right down to it, more crap comes out of the tail pipe of something made in the 1980s than a modern truck-based people mover.

And who is worthy of deciding what vehicles are wastes of fuel? After all, cars only average 27 MPG, while SUVs average 20.

so · 2003-02-11 2:06 pm

Awful presumption tievsky2.

so · 2003-02-11 2:15 pm

who is worthy of deciding what vehicles...

are road worthy? Also, who is worthy of deciding what vehicles are on the showroom floor? Both very perplexing questions. I'll try to answer one of them. It's my understanding that the government makes the road rules. For example, the Bush administration is trying to allow vehicles from Mexico to be able to share the road with you and I, exempt from our laws. Odd but true.

Mars_Attacks · 2003-02-11 2:20 pm

That is a loophole in NAFTA.

so · 2003-02-11 2:25 pm

I don't know about that, but I do believe you have every right to speak your mind about it. If you are in favor of it, you are free to say so and if you oppose it, you are just as free to say so. Either way, your voice is valid, worthy. I do believe it becomes fascist though when Industries bags of cash is what decides who is right. Fascism is corporatism.

tievsky2 · 2003-02-11 2:33 pm

so, if you can provide evidence that our choices are in fact limited by the auto industry--when, in fact, people are voluntarily buying SUV's as opposed to more fuel efficient choices that are available on the market--be my guest.

[Tycho?] I dont seek to force people into my way of thinking, however we have limited amounts of oil,

That, by itself, is a terrible reason for banning SUV's. All resources are finite and, economically speaking, scarce. That's why we have prices: as supply goes down, prices increase, people consume less of the good and consume and develop alternatives. The price system induces people to conserve.

If you don't rely upon free markets, how do you decide how much oil people should be allowed to consume? Your decision will be arbitrary.

and burning it has environmental consequenses.

That's a better reason, but, as has already been pointed out, 1)There are vehicles out there less fuel efficient than SUV's, and 2)Trying to manipulate fuel efficiency is not the way to go. If your problem is pollution, then you should be directly regulating fuel consumption itself, not fuel efficiency. For example, use taxes on gas so that the externalities of pollution are internalized, i.e., manipulate the price of gas so that it comes closer to reflecting the costs its consumption imposes on other people. Someone who buys an SUV and drives it once a week creates less pollution than someone who drives a more fuel-efficient car every day. Your proposal only targets the lesser polluter; mine targets both, in proportion to the amount of pollution they create.

so · 2003-02-11 2:37 pm

so, if you can provide evidence that our choices are in fact limited by the auto industry

You can only buy what is for sale.

people are voluntarily buying SUV's

No doubt, and I don't have a problem with sport utility vehicles. By the way, did you know this - people also voluntarily buy blue cars, even red and green ones. Weirder still, some people get pink cars. Pink cars. Ha! Can you imagine?

tievsky2 · 2003-02-11 2:42 pm

And the industry can only sell what you want to buy.

So I still disagree that "the auto industry" can "force people to [their] way of thinking regarding what to buy." I think consumers and suppliers are generally on even ground.

so · 2003-02-11 2:47 pm

And the industry can only sell what you want to buy.

That is a farce.

I still disagree

You have that right.

Jehannum · 2003-02-11 2:51 pm

And the industry can only sell what you want to buy.
That is a farce.
I still disagree
You have that right.

The article you linked to before you edited (http://www.technologyreview.com/article … ti1102.asp) directly proved tievsky's point - cars and trucks have more power (and, by extension, lower fuel economy) because of consumer demand, not because of some vast automotive conspiracy.

so · 2003-02-11 2:58 pm

use taxes on gas

I agree, we truly should tax the heck out of the stuff. As it stands, it's heavily subsidized. I help pay for your gas, and if your vehicle du jour gets poor mileage I pay particularly more.

The article you linked

...is only available for a fee. Your preumption of it is incorrect (not surprising). I suggest you buy and read the article before discussing it.

Forums | MacLife

#1 2003-02-11 11:25 am

Anti-SUV idiocy reaches fever pitch

#2 2003-02-11 11:40 am

Re: Anti-SUV idiocy reaches fever pitch

#3 2003-02-11 11:43 am

Re: Anti-SUV idiocy reaches fever pitch

#4 2003-02-11 11:47 am

Re: Anti-SUV idiocy reaches fever pitch

#5 2003-02-11 11:48 am

Re: Anti-SUV idiocy reaches fever pitch

#6 2003-02-11 11:50 am

Re: Anti-SUV idiocy reaches fever pitch

#7 2003-02-11 11:58 am

Re: Anti-SUV idiocy reaches fever pitch

#8 2003-02-11 12:02 pm

Re: Anti-SUV idiocy reaches fever pitch

#9 2003-02-11 1:16 pm

Re: Anti-SUV idiocy reaches fever pitch

#10 2003-02-11 1:22 pm

Re: Anti-SUV idiocy reaches fever pitch

#11 2003-02-11 1:36 pm

Re: Anti-SUV idiocy reaches fever pitch

#12 2003-02-11 1:45 pm

Re: Anti-SUV idiocy reaches fever pitch

#13 2003-02-11 1:58 pm

Re: Anti-SUV idiocy reaches fever pitch

#14 2003-02-11 1:59 pm

Re: Anti-SUV idiocy reaches fever pitch

#15 2003-02-11 2:00 pm

Re: Anti-SUV idiocy reaches fever pitch

#16 2003-02-11 2:06 pm

Re: Anti-SUV idiocy reaches fever pitch

#17 2003-02-11 2:15 pm

Re: Anti-SUV idiocy reaches fever pitch

#18 2003-02-11 2:20 pm

Re: Anti-SUV idiocy reaches fever pitch

#19 2003-02-11 2:25 pm

Re: Anti-SUV idiocy reaches fever pitch

#20 2003-02-11 2:33 pm

Re: Anti-SUV idiocy reaches fever pitch

#21 2003-02-11 2:37 pm

Re: Anti-SUV idiocy reaches fever pitch

#22 2003-02-11 2:42 pm

Re: Anti-SUV idiocy reaches fever pitch

#23 2003-02-11 2:47 pm

Re: Anti-SUV idiocy reaches fever pitch

#24 2003-02-11 2:51 pm

Re: Anti-SUV idiocy reaches fever pitch

#25 2003-02-11 2:58 pm

Re: Anti-SUV idiocy reaches fever pitch

Board footer