There are several SUVs out there, so if I’m generalizing it’s because you are comparing all full-size SUVs with old Cadillacs.
Large for the sake of carrying capacity
Poor gas mileage, but average for a truck
Not necessarily
Form adapted to function
SUVs are clearly quite different from a Cadillac. Caddies were not designed as working vehicles. While there is a significant number of SUV owners who do not use the full potential of their vehicles, a significant number of SUV owners do use them for hauling supplies, camping, offroading, etc. IMO you are more likely to see a Chevy Suburban at a construction site than you are to see a Caddie.
What do you mean “truck frame”? My Jeep Cherokee (a “compact” SUV) is classified as a truck, and it has unibody construction.
Well, SUV’s are certainly more verstatile. You can’t pull the back seat out of your Coupe DeVille and throw a pile of paneling and a couple shrubs in it, can ya?
Willys-Overland was building the four-wheel drive Jeep Station Wagon in the 1940s. Kaiser (which bought Willys) introduced the Wagoneer in 1963. Seeing the success of the 1950s-era Jeep CJ-5, Ford and International Harvester and Toyota brought out their competing designs (Bronco, Scout and FJ-40 Land Cruiser) in the 1960s. (I’m not sure when Cheverolet brought out the Blazer, but I think in the late 1960s or early 1970s.)
The emphasis in the 1960s was on tough truck/wagons that could handle rough conditions in a similar manner to the earlier utilitarian designs, but with more passenger comfort. In the early 1970s “offroading” became popular. That is, going offroad for the sake of going offroad. In 1984, Jeep (at this point owned by AMC) introduced the XJ Cherokee. This is generally considered the first of the “modern” SUVs, and the vehicle that started the “SUV craze”. Jeep have made a point of running all of their new vehicles over California’s tough Rubicon Trail to prove their offroad capabilities.
So the current “craze” has been going on for almost two decades, and its roots stretch back over half a century; but it seems to me that people have been complaining about SUVs only in the last few years. In the 1970s and 1980s, people were complaining about vans (poor mileage, too gaudy, too big, etc.).
There was a Pit thread where someone was complaining about SUVs. His arguements were answered by real people who really use the capabilities of SUVs. One poster’s nephew’s life was saved because he was in a Cherokee. Had he not been in an SUV, he’s be dead. Other posters mentioned that they drive offroad, haul supplies, carry people… and even commute to work. As a person who goes offroad, camps, etc., I used to look down my nose at people who buy SUVs as a “status symbol”; but the thread pointed out that there is no telling what a person uses his truck for. He or she may be a single occupant on a freeway during the week (the only time you see the person), but may do any number of things on the weekends that are made much easier in an SUV.
UncleBeer, that’s what the trunk is for! My wife calls the trunk on my 68 Deville (on right) a five-body trunk. I’m quite certain in would hold 4x8 paneling and some shrubs. Plus a body or two.
People often forget what trunks are for now that cars typically have, at most, one-body trunks.
Hell, I usually have to fold 'em up to stuff bodies in there, or cut 'em in half. I s’pose I could fold down the back seat(s), but that just gets blood on the leather. Can’t have that, can we? That’s why pick-ups with a tonneau are the best. You can simply hose out the blood and entrails at the car wash.
That’s a big flippin’ Caddy, though. Hell, the doors are longer than either of my cars. Yow!
I’m specifically comparing luxury and or high price-bracket SUV’s to the full size luxury cars of days past.
Example: How many people buy Lincoln Navigators and Cadillac Escalades for the purpose of hauling plywood? Very few. Even Expeditions and Suburbans are frequently status vehicles now, wrather than utility workhorses.
Take my aunt for example: She drives a 5.4L Expedition. She has two kids, ages 7 and 11 I believe. She rarely drives anywhere besides the parking garage at her office and the local mall. She wanted the expedition supposedly because “That way each kid can have their own bench.” Large for the sake of largeness. She wanted the 5.4L engine because the 4.6 could pass cars as quickly as the 1990 Honda Accord she was replacing.
The “current craze” is not the same craze as the 4X4 Offroading craze. Those individuals don’t want a vehicle that has minimal ground clearance, excess weight from every gadget known to humankind, and soft suspension. These new SUV’s are aimed at those who never plan to drive more than several feet away from the black top.
Johnny LA: I’m well aware that the Cherokee is a unibody design. It would have been more appropriate for me to say “Vehicles classified by the EPA as light trucks.” Although, I must say, many SUV’s are built with unibody frames, and many cars (not so much any more) are built with separate body and chassis; take the Crown Victoria, and the late Chevrolet Caprice.
Keep in mind I’m not looking at all SUV’s. I’m looking at Luxury SUV’s. Let us examine your points in relation to a Caddy Escalade or Lincoln Navigator:
Large for the sake of carrying capacity
Yup: Biff and Roxy are hauling all those supplies to rough it in the woods.
Poor gas mileage, but average for a truck:
12 MPG is NOT average for a truck. Except maybe my grandfathers 1974 Ford F100.
Not necessarily
Take a look at one of these boats sometime.
Form adapted to function
Form adapted to fad.
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t dislike SUV’s. I think they’re great vehicles, and extremely useful. I just hate seeing Navigators and Escalades posing as Sport Utility Vehicles when they:
Are not sporty
Are not utilitarian
Are in reality, modern luxury cars, built on truck frames (gimme a break y’all, they’re built on the same chassis as an F-Series Ford and GM Full size trucks.
When I said the craze is nothing new, I meant that it is the persuance of the same characteristics desired in past eras of the automobile.
To pick a nit, soft suspension is very desireable in offroading.
**
12 MPG is actually not bad for a gas-powered truck or van. I’m not talking Toyotas or Nissans, but Fords and Dodges.
**
Eye of the beholder
**
Same here
**
And…? Actually frame-based 4x4’s are much better chassis for offroad use–they flex, unlike the unibodies. Plus you can actually tow something, unlike, say, a Caravan or Subaru.
**
Power, size, safety, and usefulness? True, hardly new concepts…
I mean, is your beef just with the Caddies and Lincolns because, say, they have leather when the Tahoes and Expiditions don’t?
“To pick a nit, soft suspension is very desireable in offroading”
Then why aren’t Cherokee’s built and shipped from the factory with suspension like a Buick Roadmaster?
“And…? Actually frame-based 4x4’s are much better chassis for offroad use–they flex, unlike the unibodies. Plus you can actually tow something, unlike, say, a Caravan or Subaru.”
Did I say anything derogatory about old-style construction? My point was that referring to such vehicles as being on “truck frames” was irrelevant to Johnny L.A.'s objection about his cherokee.
And I don’t have a beef with them. I simply noticed the following:
Extremely large luxury cars have been legislated out of existance, and SUV’s have drifted away from their macho roots to cover this vacant niche. Each automobile company is required by the federal government to have the mean gas mileage of all the cars they sell greater than a certain value (I don’t remember the value.) SHould they fail to do this, they are subject to a “Gas-Guzzler” tax.
Being that it is now uneconomical for the automobile companies to build massive cars, they take their truck based (and therefore not subject to the same regulations) SUV’s, and load them down with every amenity but the kitchen sink, take away much of their ground clearance, and sell them to the same clientelle formerly cruising the freeways in Caddy Fleetwoods.
My point in mentioning the unibody construction was that not all “trucks” are built on a rolling chassis so the “requirement to be built on a truck frame” isn’t really a requirement for classifying a vehicle as a “truck”. As I said, my Cherokee is not on a rolling chassis, but is of unibody construction. It is classified as a “truck”.
While I, personally, would not take it over the Rubicon Trail, plenty of Cherokees have made the trip. The Cherokee’s unibody construction has also acquitted itself well over the past (almost) two decades. Sure, I’d like a “real” frame, but this particular unibody design has proven itself durable.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled debate.
I think the biggest difference is that old Caddies are cool and SUVs are what soccer moms drive and are, therefore, totally uncool.
There’s a '74 Olds 98 two-door for sale nearby. Now, THAT’S an automobile! A 455 (remember when 302s were SMALL?), enough steel to make a Quonset hut, enough room for a lardass like me PLUS my family. A proper car.
