Ladies, sometimes we guys buy pick-ups/ sports cars because well...

[E-Sabbath]

A: I think that, relative to the rest of the market, and because of aging, the trademark Dodge grille is less aggressive than when introduced.

B: The meaning of ‘family look’ is not that the car is for family, but that all Dodge vehicles bear a certain resemblance. In part, this waters down the unique look of the Dodge truck grille, but it makes you aware the vehicle you are looking at is a Dodge.

C: Trust me, it’s still less aggressive than a all-chrome grille the size of Texas like the 50s. And there’s no Dagmars at all.

[Liberal]

@Muffin

You are truly a nit-picking idiot, for even you, as dim witted as you are, can not be so ignorant as to serious assume that an old car has the reliability, availablity of parts, cargo capacity and ground clearance that is necessary to haul boats and gear on logging roads.

Go back to your hole and get back on your meds, Liberal.

Now you’ve done it. Calling a '59 Rolls (especially a Silver Cloud) “an old car” is like calling a 1787 Chateau Lafite “an old wine”. Oh, and suck my dick.

[Ogre]

@Liberal

Now you’ve done it. Calling a '59 Rolls (especially a Silver Cloud) “an old car” is like calling a 1787 Chateau Lafite “an old wine”. Oh, and suck my dick.

Conductor to engineer! Conductor to engineer! I think you took that last curve way too fast. The dining car is leaning precariously, two wheels off the rails. I think we’re right on the verge of a trainwreck!

To enipla, have you SEEN the Dodge commercials recently? “Yeah, it’s got a Hemi!” There are at least two that I can think of where the entire premise of the commercial is that you’ll be able to trounce wussy-boys off the red light in a street race because YOU. GOT. A. HEMI!

The intimidation and aggression could not possibly be more on display if they used a scene of prison rape to sell their cars. That they are specifically going for the testosterone-addled manly-man market is absolutely inarguable.

All that said, an individual may buy a Dodge for a wide variety of reasons, including utility, power, whatever. But lots of people buy for the image. That’s why Dodge does it. They can sell more cars by setting up a tough-guy image with their product. And yes, market researchers have the absolute best incentive to know about human behavior. They make their living off of it. The advertising industry is founded on appealing to image.

[I_don_t_care_about_your_cat]

@E-Sabbath

A: I think that, relative to the rest of the market, and because of aging, the trademark Dodge grille is less aggressive than when introduced.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying, in other words, it doesn’t look as aggressive because we’re used to it now. That may be true, but I’m not sure what your point is in mentioning it.

B: The meaning of ‘family look’ is not that the car is for family, but that all Dodge vehicles bear a certain resemblance.

I didn’t say “family look” = car is for family. I said the high-performance trucks DON’T have a family look. I understood your meaning; I just disagree.

In part, this waters down the unique look of the Dodge truck grille, but it makes you aware the vehicle you are looking at is a Dodge.

But that doesn’t NEGATE the fact that they’re designed to look aggressive.

C: Trust me, it’s still less aggressive than a all-chrome grille the size of Texas like the 50s. And there’s no Dagmars at all.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove. I think we’ve provided more than enough evidence in this thread that Dodge is giving their trucks an aggressive look, and that their current advertising campaign is touting aggression. In addition to the ads referenced by other posters, I recall one no more than a couple of years ago that featured a large Dodge truck revving its engine with a voice-over of “We’re gonna eat [VROOOM!]…your [VROOOM!]…lunch!” Another one had a Dodge truck street-racing a car while towing a trailer. This really shouldn’t be a debate at all; Dodge’s marketing strategy is patently obvious, and Dodge freely admits that’s what they’re doing. They want people to associate their trucks with aggression*. I mean, we could debate whether Victoria’s Secret is trying to market sexiness, and I could come up with all sorts of specious arguments about how underwear is a utilitarian article of clothing, and how their panties aren’t any smaller than X brand, and they had lacy underwear in the 50s, and blah, blah, blah, but at some point you have to admit what’s staring you in the face.

What’s a Dagmar?
*And by the way, the fact that Dodge wants people to associate their trucks with aggression doesn’t mean that aggression is anybody’s stated reason for buying a truck. A couple posters mentioned that they don’t know anyone who says, “I’m buying this because I’m aggressive” or something to that effect. Well OF COURSE it’s not going to be an overt thing like that. People who are buying for that reason are of course rationalizing the purchase in their mind and telling themselves that they need that truck. And of course some people do need a truck or SUV. Many others, however, are simply using them as daily commute vehicles - they don’t need a truck; they just want something big and intimidating, whether they admit it consciously or not.

[I_don_t_care_about_your_cat]

@Ogre

The intimidation and aggression could not possibly be more on display if they used a scene of prison rape to sell their cars. That they are specifically going for the testosterone-addled manly-man market is absolutely inarguable.

Thank you! It’s so obvious that it shouldn’t even be open to debate. I’m thinking that those who are arguing to the contrary must simply not have seen any of these ads.

All that said, an individual may buy a Dodge for a wide variety of reasons, including utility, power, whatever. But lots of people buy for the image. That’s why Dodge does it.

Well said. Not everyone buys a Dodge truck because they want to be a tough guy, so if that doesn’t apply to someone, he/she shouldn’t be offended.

[monkeyfist]

@I don't care about your cat

As opposed to you? :dubious:

Surely you must realize that I didn’t mean that literally. :rolleyes:

I used the word “most” only to deny having said it. You took that word out of context, which is beneath contempt. You are obviously trolling, and I don’t respond to trolls. Good bye.

I’m not going to get into a “you were a jerk first” argument with you, especially since I believe that I have not said ANYTHING thus far in this thread that would be considered the least but provoking to any chemically-balanced individual.

You are **still ** refusing to acknowledge the very clear and reasonably stated flaws in your logic that I addressed in post #93. Because you seem to be a reasonably intelligent person, I have to assume that you are purposely avoiding them because you can not adequately respond to them. As Such, I and the others in this forum and thread can see that you are a morn with little to actually add to the thread and if you refuse to have a logical debate about the topics broached here, I do not understand why you would still be here. As such, shut up and leave until you are prepared to sensibly respond to the criticisms of your logical fallacies. This purpose of the board is fight ignorance, but in this fight, parties of both sides

[monkeyfist]

er, read that:
“You are still refusing to acknowledge the very clear and reasonably stated flaws in your logic that I addressed in post #106”

[I_don_t_care_about_your_cat]

@I don't care about your cat

I didn’t say “family look” = car is for family. I said the high-performance trucks DON’T have a family look. I understood your meaning; I just disagree.

Darn it all! I just figured out what you were saying. You’re right, I DIDN’T understand your meaning. Sorry about that. I still don’t understand what your point is in bringing it up, though.

[I_don_t_care_about_your_cat]

(Above post directed to E-Sabbath)

[E-Sabbath]

@Liberal

Now you’ve done it. Calling a '59 Rolls (especially a Silver Cloud) “an old car” is like calling a 1787 Chateau Lafite “an old wine”. Oh, and suck my dick.

Libby, Libby, libbypoo. I do hope you’re moisturized. Now, let’s discuss your vehicle.
http://www.rrab.com/rsc1.htm
Beauty, ain’t she? No ground clearance, no towing hitch, insufficient trunk space, miserable headroom, poor fuel economy, expensive and specialized parts, the world’s most gorgeous paint job, comparatively insufficient horsepower (Remember, they recalculated the standards in the 70s… horsepower is engine with all attachments now), specialized fuel requirements, mechanical ignition, mechanical drum brakes. Oh, and no CD player, no modern AC (Remember, Freon’s hard to get these days) automatic gearbox most probably. Poor traction, heavy steering, and british electrics.
And that was when it was new.

Not that it’s not art, and it’s not class, but really, a seventeen foot long Rolls with a six cylinder engine… it’s not suitable for offroad. Really. Or, well, driving into the supermarket, either. Please. You insult me. Cars are tools for jobs. You do not take the SUV to the board meeting, you do not drive the Rolls offroad.

Unless it’s a certain blue Rolls pickup.

[E-Sabbath]

Dagmars are the… bulges… in the chrome grille of many 1950s cars. You probably don’t want to know why they’re called that. They’re lethal to pedestrians, though.
Take a look at the '57, here. http://www.allpar.com/model/ram/ram-history.html
And the '02, here. http://www.allpar.com/model/ram/index.html
There is a certain resemblance… and the point I was trying to make is that trucks have always looked somewhat aggressive. They’re… big. And powerful.
And certainly, they’re sold that way, because aggression is ‘sexy’.

My point is, such as it is, is that the newer trucks are no more aggressive than the old ones, just aggressive in different ways.
Big Dodge. http://pages.tias.com/10720/PictPage/1922026280.html
Ram Tough. http://pages.tias.com/10720/PictPage/1922086186.html
Ramcharger. http://pages.tias.com/10720/PictPage/1922301557.html

Here’s the Ram being released. http://www.pickuptruck.com/html/history/segment13.html
Note the styling commentary.
http://www.pickuptruck.com/html/history/segment8.html
This is a good look at an aggressive 1950s version.
Go ahead, dig around.

[abbeytxs]

@Johnny L.A.

Nope! I understand the theory about how a four-cycle engine works, but haven’t a clue how to fix them. :o

Well damn. I was hoping to entice you to come to Texas and put my MGTD back together and since you mentioned somewhere the desire for a family I was going to send my kids back with you when you were done. Another well thought out plan shot all to hell.

[enipla]

I’m curious. To featherlou, IDCAYC etal.

1. What percentage of people do you think buy trucks/SUV’s to intimidate/bully are aggressive to other drivers.

2. What percentage do you think intimidate and bully, but also have good reason to own them.

3. What percent do you think are good drivers but have no use for them.

4. What percent do you think are good drivers and have good use for them.

5. Where do you live.

6. Can you give a WAG as to the percentage of Trucks and SUV’s compared to cars for where you live?

If you would like to split it up between SUV’s and trucks, or Dodge only, go ahead, but please indicate so.

[enipla]

Dagmars….

Madonna’s bra is a grill off an old Cadillac!

[E-Sabbath]

Other way round.
http://home.teleport.com/~flyheart/dagmar.htm

[Cat_Whisperer]

@enipla

I’m curious. To featherlou, IDCAYC etal.

1. What percentage of people do you think buy trucks/SUV’s to intimidate/bully are aggressive to other drivers.

Around 60%.

2. What percentage do you think intimidate and bully, but also have good reason to own them.

Of the 60% that are bullies with their large vehicles, I would say around 15% have good reason to own them.

3. What percent do you think are good drivers but have no use for them.

Trick question - I don’t think very many people are good drivers, period. As for people driving SUVs/large vehicles that are good drivers, but have no particular reason to be driving a large vehicle, I’d say around 5% are good drivers, and around 85% have no use for them.

4. What percent do you think are good drivers and have good use for them.

5%.

5. Where do you live.

Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

6. Can you give a WAG as to the percentage of Trucks and SUV’s compared to cars for where you live?

If you would like to split it up between SUV’s and trucks, or Dodge only, go ahead, but please indicate so.

I’ve heard Calgary referred to as the SUV capital of North America - I was never able to find any statistics on that, but we do seem to have an awful lot of SUVs/large vehicles here. I would guess they are running about 40% of all vehicular traffic here.

[I_don_t_care_about_your_cat]

@E-Sabbath

My point is, such as it is, is that the newer trucks are no more aggressive than the old ones, just aggressive in different ways.

I see. Well, again, I didn’t make this up; I’m simply repeating a well-known and oft-cited fact in the automotive industry, for which I have provided copious cites. You can keep trying to refute it if you like, but you’re arguing against a lot of experts in the field as well as the Dodge company’s own admission. So I don’t know what else to say.

[E-Sabbath]

Cat, I’m not denying it’s true. I’m saying it’s just about always been true. It’s a manly thing to own a truck.

The big revolution in SUVs was getting women to want them too.

[enipla]

@featherlou

Trick question - I don’t think very many people are good drivers, period.

Yeah. What I meant was 'people that aren’t trying to bully, be aggressive.

I guess I should throw some numbers out too.

1. What percentage of people do you think buy trucks/SUV’s to intimidate/bully are aggressive to other drivers.

What defines an aggressive/intimidateing driver? Tailgaiting for sure, I guess It’s like porn, you know it when you see it.

I can’t remember the last time I saw some one being aggressive. I imagine I see someone tail-gaiting every few days. I’ll put this number at 5%. I think that’s kinda high, but It helps my other numbers add up to 100%.

2. What percentage do you think intimidate and bully, but also have good reason to own them.

Hard one. Maybe Half of the group of 5% above. Since I see so few intimidate with them, it’s a non-issue to me.

3. What percent do you think are good drivers but have no use for them.

Good driver in that they aren’t bullys, but have no good use for the vehicle. Where I live, based on the people I know and what I see others doing with them. 10%. For the rest of the country, based on what I know people use trucks/SUV’s for, more like 25%.

4. What percent do you think are good drivers and have good use for them.

Non-aggressive, have good use. Again, from my observations of where I live. 85%. Cut that back to 70% for the rest of the country.

5. Where do you live.

Central Colorado Rockies. South of Breckenridge.

6. Can you give a WAG as to the percentage of Trucks and SUV’s compared to cars for where you live?

I’ve done a few informal surveys on my drive too and from work. About 60-75% of the vehicles are trucks or SUV’s.

[Cat_Whisperer]

Wow, your experience with aggressive drivers is nothing at all like mine. I see it every single time I drive somewhere, and it is usually aimed at me in my small car. I get tailgated every single time I drive - I never, ever drive slower than the speed limit, and I always get tailgated. I get passed on the right, I get honked at (usually when I’m waiting for someone who actually has right of way), I see people driving through stop signs and red lights almost daily, I get cut off so I have to either slow down or panic brake nearly every day.

This explains a lot, why everybody goes around so much in discussions of driving and vehicles on the Straight Dope. We’re obviously not all coming from the same place.