The way I interpret SUV hatred is jealousy of prosperity.
SUVs are expensive vehicles. I think that they are good examples of conspicuous consumption.
I have seen a lot of people who hate others simply because of their prosperity. A big, expensive automobile like an SUV becomes the focus for this hatred.
FTR, I don’t own an SUV, I don’t hate SUVs or their owners, I don’t hate or envy people who are well off financially, andI’m by no means wealthy.
I find the hatred/jealousy issues here as strange as can be.
Sounds like it’s not to late to rent a UHaul for your one trip and buy a reasonably priced economy car…
Waitaminute, you may see it, but I sure don’t. I mean, who brought us Goat Porn? Evil Nazi Groundhogs? Tales of changing your baby’s diaper?
You’ve been insane for a long time now. 
It does indeed. I was just pointing out that their 4-cylinder engines were capable of lasting a hell of a long time too.
I’m looking forward to my wife’s hysterical peals of laughter when I show this to her. 
Seriously, I drive fast, and I drive cars hard. I start up quickly from stoplights, I like passing on 2-lane roads, and I’m the guy who’s always changing lanes on the highway to get around somebody. Prior to buying the new Honda and having a warranty to protect, I was absolutely terrible about bringing my cars in for regular maintenance. I’m fairly easy on the steering and brakes, because (unless I’m behind some damned SUV ;)) I can see ahead, and I anticipate. But overall, I’m far from being gentle on a car, and I’m not remotely a conservative driver on dry roads.
I’m not saying you should HAVE to show need to purchase a car. I’m saying that if someone inconveniences me out of a need, I am less unhappy than if someone does the same out of vanity.
An example:
You are walking down a narrow flight of stairs, the person in front of you is walking down VERY slowly, blocking your path. Are you equally annoyed if the person is going so slow because of:
a) a cell phone call
b) a broken leg
I, for one, will be a bit less annoyed at the broken leg person because he doesn’t really have any other choice. The cell phone person has less annoying options that he chose not to take, because he wanted to take his call on the stairs.
SUV drivers do inconvenience other drivers (visibility, etc.), and many of them do so out of vanity sake alone. I will happily defend people who purchase SUVs, trucks, minivans, etc out of a need for their particular abilities. I see no need to defend those who make SUV purchases out of vanity sake alone, as they inconvenience other drivers for no good (IMHO) reason.
Remember, it’s okay to buy a car to look cool, or to have fun, it’s also okay for people to not like the decision.
Piffle. I’m quite prosperous, and I still hate the damn things.
Only at the upper levels (much like cars, actually). Most SUV’s compare quite favorably to the price of regular automobiles in purchase price.
Seen any in here?
I must have missed all those people in this thread bitching about those Mercedes and Lexus sedans.
Fucking WHERE? You’re pulling this out of your ass, at least as far as the comments in this thread are concerned.
a) Well, that’s gonna have me tossing and turning all night.
b) I wish I could say you’ve disappointed me, but you’ve only met my expectations for you. Perhaps we’d all be better off if you typed slower, or spent your free time watching TV.
Needless to say, moderator hat well OFF in all the above posts.
For the record, I’m don’t think Cheesesteak’s “vanity” argument is necessarily the same thing as “jealousy of prosperity.” Though he’s certainly arguing against the SUV-as-status-symbol purchase, the thrust of the argument is still aimed at their utility, i.e. that many people are buying SUVs despite basically never needing the carrying passenger or payload capacity, much less the frequently non-existent off-road capacity. If somebody starts equating SUVs with Mercedes sedans (which aren’t subject to those utility objections), then I think you’ve got a jealousy argument.
:walks in, wiping hands with WetNap, vaguely smelling like gasoline:
Sorry folks, here I am to accept that apology from Hamlet. You’ll have to excuse me, I was filling the tank on my Explorer, and about 20 minutes into it, I noticed a Mazda Protege wedged up under my front fenderwell. They’re a bitch to pry out from up under there…
In the near future, look for negative emmission vehicles. When put on the road in the average city, they will actually make the air cleaner rather then polluting. Ultra-low emmisions coupled with catalytic coatings on the radiator (and other stuff; I’m no expert) will accomplish this. It’s not a pipe dream; there are working vehicles that can accomplish this. This link is the best I can do on short notice (see the PDF link all the way at the bottom) .
http://www.ftimeters.com/PAGES/emissions.html
It explains why the EPA says there is no such thing as a negative emissions vehicle, but this is because under their guidelines emissions is defined as what comes out of the tailpipe only, not the net effect of operating the vehicle.
So in a couple years, maybe us SUV owners can criticize the little car owners for not doing their share to clean the air, what with their little vehicles only cleaning half the air of my big vehicle.
I have to say I’ve seen relatively few people complain about Scylla’s presence. In this thread, there seems to just be you and Hamlet who have something against him (I guess there might have been a couple who agreed with Hamlet about the hypocrisy thing, but it didn’t seem personal). Don’t presume to speak for the rest of us as to whether we’d be better off with less of Scylla’s presence around here. Maybe you’d be better off the way you suggest, but it’s, well, rather presumptuous to say we all would be.
Not to mention, you seem to be purposely acting like a prick for no discernable reason. Whatever objections you have to Scylla’s posts, you have only mentioned their length and number. You seem to be posting in this thread solely to take random potshots at Scylla. Maybe we’d all be better off if you just ignored this thread, which the rest of us seem to have no problem with.
Can 19-year-olds even rent UHauls? And it would cost me over $1000, I’ve priced it several times with different carriers. So I’d have to sell my truck ($3000), set aside $1000 and use the other $2000 to buy a used car that’s capable of making multiple trips back and forth between Texas and New York.
I stand by my decision, and think less of you for thinking less of me because of it.
From everything I’ve read, 20 mpg is exceptional for the Durango.
My Outback with the 2.2 engine gets in the high 20’s for mileage – flirts with 30 on long highway trips. Unfortunately they don’t make the 2.2 engine anymore (even though it was more than adequate), so I don’t doubt that the mileage has decreased.
I can also put a canoe on top of the Subaru without having to resort to a stepladder.
From what I recall, in New York state, the law forbids rental agencies from discriminating on the basis of age. I think most states lack similar laws. I can’t recall if you’re still in New York state, though, so that might not be useful, even in theory.
You have to be over 25 to rent a car. Believe me, I know. I tried to rent a convertible to surprise my mom on her birthday.
Google “propane car pollution,” I got - arrgh! - 8500+ hits. Propane is cleaner than gas and, unlike other alt. fuels, is available sometimes. I cannot find hard numbers. I just got dozens of ‘green’ websites suggesting you convert your car to propane before I got sick of looking. Perhaps you can narrow the search better than I can.
I will cease my dislike of SUVs and their drivers when they stop parking in the “compact car” spaces at my son’s pediatrician’s office.
That is all.
Well, except that I feel some perverse desire to point out that MrWhatsit and I are the proud owners of a 1985 Toyota Tercel hatchback with 130,000 miles on it that shows no signs of quitting anytime soon and has, on occasion, hauled large loads of furniture including conference tables, and also gets between 22-30 miles per gallon. (Depending on where we’re driving it and whether we had the A/C on.)
Not maligning SUVs here; just proselytizing the Way of the Hatchback.
That is all. (For real this time.)
As some of you know, my lovely new Toyota Tacoma X-tra cab was involved in a minor collision with a Mitsubishi Montero. Said Montero had bullbars. Those bullbars did $4,000 worth of damage to my beautiful new car. The only thing that hit my car WAS the bullbar.
A traffic cop at the scene expressed to me his hatred of the bullbars, because of the damage they do to other cars. I, of course, concurred. This Montero, several years old, had never been off-road. I asked. He just drove it around town.
Again, I don’t have a problem with SUV’s as a whole. A lot of them are really cool. But Caddy and Lexus SUV’s cross the line, in my book.
Check me if I’m wrong, but there seems to be a trend over the last some odd years to make all vehicles bigger, and with no good reason. Yes, the SUV’s afre getting bigger, but the Ford Ranger, Nissan Frontier and Toyota Tacoma are all substantially larger than in past years. Why?
Lastly, there should be a special place in hell for those morons who drive the monsterous F-350 pickups but never actually haul anything. I hate these guys!!!
I’ve had worse things slinged at me. Plus, my part of Europe isn’t flooded yet.
Yes, they’ll probably last just as long as the brakes on my hatchback. But: if you have to replace those puppies, you’ll pay twice what I’ll pay. Higher running costs per mile.
No, according to the specs I quoted, the Sub gets about 27 MPG on the highway versus the 17 MPG for the Durango. Let’s say your own figures are accurate (and why would they not be) and go with that 20 MPG you told us about. The Subaru, with 27 MPG, is 35% more fuel efficient. Nothing to scoff at! Mind you, with its 4 wheel drive, it’s hardly a miracly of modern economics either - but it’ll get a decent MPG whilst still sharing a lot of characteristics with your SUV. Just not the preposterous size and weight. 
There’s a few things wrong with that scenario, though. First of all, these cars aren’t cleaning the air. They just produce emissions that are cleaner than average city air, polluted by years and years of industrialisation and traffic. What they’re basically saying is: “the shit this car emits is in some circumstances less vile than the shit it emits it in, therefore the average vileness of the total shit is decreased - yay for us!”
Disingenious at best.
Also, expect cars like SUV’s to be the last to adopt this technology: after all, SUV’s are using outdated and fuel-unefficient technology now - for no other reason than the sheer desire for torque and horsepower, needed to drag all that weight around. I’m sure the average SUV owner won’t be pleased with 2.0 very clean liters of sheer terror, giving him 110 BHP at his disposal to haul his behemoth up the onramp.
Soda should come in 2 liters, not engines.
Heck, I embarrassed that my cousin is driving a SUV that was not only made in the USSR (Lada Niva, and not one of those neat newer ones), but it has a meager 1.6 liter engine.
(Ok, I am actually proud of him. He’s driving a SUV, albeit a small one, in a land where Fiat is king!)
This was not the best link for the argument, as I mentioned up front. There is technology that converts existing nastiness in the air and makes it cleaner by it’s operation. Imagine operating a big air filtration system while driving. This, coupled with ULEVs, are the key.
And there is absolutely no reason to believe SUVs won’t adopt this technology at the same rate as passenger cars. The ULEV and air cleaning technology does not interfere with power production. Witness the ULEV Excursion: