And that invalidates the safety concerns?
I contend that most people don’t need the 4wd once a month. And in fact, many SUVs don’t even come with 4wd. That’s great that you have “3 uses” IF YOU NEED 3 USES. If so many people are buying SUVs because they need 4wd, please explain to me why they are offered WITHOUT 4wd.
And by the way, if you are worried about redundant vehicles, then how do you explain the fact that many families own more than one SUV?
Ok, here are some specific examples of SUV drivers I know.
T. 37 Executive Male 1 kid: Drives Jeep Grand Cherokee (small man syndrome, also has boxster)
Time spent “off road” 0 Time spent in 4wd 0 Time spent hauling more than 4 people 0 (commuter) Towing 0
A. 26 Admin Female no kids: Chevy Blazer (likes the way it looks)
Off Road 0, 4wd 0, People hauling 0 (commuter), towing 0
S. 35 Sales Male No Kids: Expedition (genetalia)
Off Road 1 dirt road, 4wd same road, people hauling 0 (commuter), towing 0
R. 34 Female 1 kid: Blazer
Off Road 0, 4wd 0, people hauling 0, towing 0 (likes the way it looks)
C. 39 Male no kids: Pathfinder
Off Road 0, 4wd 0, people hauling 0, towing 0 (needs the space for his paintings)
P. 33 Male 3 kids: Tahoe (lack of storage at house, so uses Tahoe as mobile storage, seriously)
Off Road 0, 4wd 0, People hauling occasional (soccer practice), towing occasional (but, he also drives a full size pickup as a commuter)
I’m not picking and choosing to back up my argument. These are people I know and have talked to about why they drive the cars they do.
Do some people need these vehicles? Sure. Do most people who drive these things need them? Not in my observation.
Tastycorn, I still fail to see why you consider it perfectly ok to say that people choose to drive SUVs just because of “small man syndrome” or “genitalia” or “not having a penis.”
Not every SUV driver, just my observation of the ones I know…
I have known them for quite a while, one is my uncle (small man). He is the smallest by far of five brothers and without a doubt, he is out to prove something to the world. Almost everything he does is because of an urge to “prove” himself.
The other, (expedition) does indeed have below average genetalia. (pissed off ex girlfriend told me, if you must know). As long as I have known him, it seemed as if he was constantly overcompensating for something. (to me, the insider information made sense, there may be other reasons)
I’m sorry, but if you have a better theory why a single guy would drive a 12 mpg truck on a 100 mile commute each day, I would love to hear it.
Oh, you’re a lawyer. 
It would be better for highway driving. I think many people ‘observe’ these (in whatever way you choose) and see one person in it. I think they tend to ignore the ones that are chuck up to capacity. 29 with a single driver, one towing or whatever. I think this is because there seems to me to be a bias (by some people) against the vehicle. If you use the vehicle once a month for something other vehicles can’t do, I believe you have a good case for owning one.
I don’t know anyone with a 2x SUV. But that may be a function of where I live. On other boards, the 2x owners I have run across use them for towing (yes, again with the towing). Pretty much a perfect platform for that.
tastycorn - I mentioned that where I live, about 75% of the vehicles are SUVs, and 4x4 trucks (like blowero, I also did an informal survey). Kind of hard to tell about the others. We have a TON of tourists. I’m not gonna start asking why people use them, they would put me away.
Anyway, it seems that the people you know don’t really need these vehicles, the people I know do.
I think I understand why the anti-SUV folks (need a better term for that) are frustrated. But, also understand that lots and lots of people don’t buy them to keep up with the Jones’s. We get frustrated by people that would like to restrict what we can buy.
When I was growing up, we always had at least one large car, usually a Chrysler wagon. Makes my Pathfinder look like a Civic. My folks bought what they needed just like I do today. My Pathfinder gets nearly twice the mileage, and does just as much and more. Not bad.
blowero -
Yep, the SUV was a loophole so that they could still make larger cars for the people that want one. Gas mileage, safety and quality have improved dramatically. It will continue to do so.
I don’t like to rationalize like this but, I think that this need, or want for a bigger car has done amazing things with overall safety, and technology. There is some good, even for people that don’t want a big car.
Sorry, it doesn’t quite work this way. The technological advancements tend to trickle up from cars, not the other way around. Look at the “new technologies” just starting to show up on SUV’s.
4 Wheel Anti Lock Brakes
4 Wheel Disk Brakes
Independent rear suspension
Unibody Construction
Engine management technologies are years behind small cars. With no emission regulation or MGP requirements, they are free to use displacement instead of technology. Technology is getting 140 Hp per liter out of the WRX STI. Brute force is getting 35-55 hp/liter in the Expedition.
One of the reasons SUV’s are so profitable is that they are technologically un-advanced.
The safety concerns are, as you have stated, only tangential to whether people need the cars. You defended big rigs and vans because they are necessary. It seems, then, that the only real argument is whether SUVs are necessary, and if so, how often.
Surely you’ll allow that once a month to be an average over the course of the year? Work with me, people!
Excellent point. In fact, other than towing, I can’t think of a single damned reason anyone would even consider buying a 2wd SUV, or pickup for that matter. Talk about a menace!
Okay, that convinces me that 90% of the people who have 2wd SUVs don’t need them. After all, I doubt more than 10% of them are towing anything. (It’s probably even lower, but I’ll just pick a nice easy number like 10%.)
I’m worried about our thought experiment forcing Joe and Jane Hypothetical to have to buy more than one vehicle. They’re on a budget, you know. Joe’s company is due for another round of layoffs. Jane was considering taking some time off, maybe a second pregnancy…
Oops, where was I?
Julie
tastecorn,
OK. But if manufactuers did not trickle up, would they even have bothered to try to develope these engines? Who really needs 180hp in an Accord? These are developed because people want or need them.
We could all be driving 80hp Civics. Works for some but not for others.
Heee,
Two 4x4 SUV’s, one 4x4 truck/w plow, one 4x4 tractor/loader, one 7x16 trailer, one motorcycle, two mountain bikes.
Two people, one old dog and two cats.
We need them all.
I’m sorry, but this doesn’t make any sense to me. Car manufacturers have always been in a technology race. Faster and more efficient has been the goal since the invention of the internal combustion engine. SUVs were a step backwards in passenger vehicle technology, and only after 15 years are they starting to catch up.
There is some technology that is being developed for SUV’s, but it all revolves around the immense weight and high center of gravity…not something that is likely to benefit lightweight passenger cars.
Sorry, can’t give you that. Maybe in some parts of the country, but not those that never see snow.
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree, then. You are insisting that I prove a negative, which is exceedingly difficult. No matter how much evidence I provide that people are using SUVs for purposes for which another vehicle would be more apt, you can simply say “Well maybe they’re using it for something else when you’re not looking”. Short of providing complete diaries of the entire lives of each of the millions of SUV owners, it would be impossible for me to prove it to your satisfaction.
Well they exist, so obviously someone owns them.
This is just getting silly. If I cite evidence that few people use the off-road capability, you say they are using the 4WD. If I point out that many 2WD SUVs are sold, you say they are using them for towing. If I point out that few of the ones on the road in urban areas even have trailer hitches, you will no doubt contend that all the ones without trailer hitches just happen to be the ones that need the 4WD capability. And you will no doubt argue that the dramatic, nay astonishing increase in SUV sales in the last 10 years is solely due to an uprecedented number of people suddenly needing to drive in the snow and tow things. (Does it snow more than it did 10 years ago?)
Here’s some more evidence, which I’m sure you will dismiss out-of-hand. I took it out of a review of Bradsher’s book so you all can look at it on-line if you wish:
Does the fact that one of the very guys who was responsible for selling these things admits that they were making an unnecessary product convince you at all?
Did anyone suggest restricting what you can buy?
Well that’s certainly a disingenuous argument if I ever heard one. Your Pathfinder only does well when you compare it to cars of a previous era. It does poorly when compared totoday’s cars, which are much, much more efficient than that.
Incorrect. I don’t think you really understood what I wrote. The loophole discourages them from making large cars, even though large cars are safer than SUVs. Gas mileage, safety and emissions (you forgot that one) have improved dramatically only because the government created REGULATIONS requiring automakers to do so. The loophole allows them to make SUVs under a much looser regulatory standard, which means they can maximize their profits by selling SUVs as opposed to cars. It’s not about your individual choice, it’s about auto makers having a vested interest in selling more and more SUVs.
(same cite)
You asked, I cited a good example of why someone would want a 2x SUV.
Many?:dubious: I’m curious, do you have a cite for that?
No, I believe that it is because people where unhappy with the scarcity of large cars. SUVs filled that roll. That and people discovered just how practical the SUV is.
No. To follow that logic, we really don’t need front wheel drive either. Works pretty good though.
No, but you don’t need to read between any lines to understand what I mean.
Again, I think I was pretty clear. The SUV’s are a replacement for the large cars people drove for years, and years. Having 4x4 on them is a bonus for some, a need for others.
I’m perfectly happy with more regulations, with one caveat, they don’t take the U out of SUV. It will happen, it is happening. But apparently not fast enough for some people.
Blowero, these are the type of comments I was speaking about earlier. I see no smiley faces so I have to assume that this guy believes himself to be serious.
Need, need, need … this ‘need’ can sound quite plausible, but rarely is there an absolute need for someone to own an SUV. Wait, don’t start shouting yet!
In mild-to-moderate offroad conditions, you could nearly always use a standard car. You’d need to take it really easy, and the wear upon suspension components would be accelerated … but you could do it. It would be rather inconvenient.
Commuting. Rarely is an SUV necessary for commuting. Mind you, neither is a car. Unless you are travelling vast distances, you could cycle. You could use public transport. You could walk, run, hang glide, pogo-stick hop. It would be rather inconvenient.
In fact, rarely is a motorised vehicle necessary. There are cycles, public transport, Shanks’ Pony, Taxis. It would be rather inconvenient to rely on these things, but you could.
People don’t, as a rule, buy what they need. What they need is often nothing more than what they have. Instead, they buy what they want. What they want will include convenience. I’m not sure that encouraging people to use transport that’s less convenient for them is a Good Thing, regardless of whether the SUV driver could - in theory - get by in a Smart Car.
Take the ‘need’ argument to its end, and you find that we don’t need to own much…
One might argue that an SUV is NOT more convenient for a given individual, and they have fallen prey to marketing, idiocy, pre-senile demetia. Well, TBH, ain’t that their perogative, being in a free country and all that?
Originally posted by Boldface Type
Thank you. The “need” police are always out there trying to confom the world to the way they would like to see it.
Thank you again. I like my truck. I think it looks “cool”. I am 6’5" 285 lbs, I don’t fit in the econoboxes today. I realize I could loose some weight, but I can’t loose any height.
Unless you happen to live in the United States. Honestly, public transport here (from what I know about it) is dismal, if it exists at all.
And for myself, I buy what I want as long as it does what I need. Pretty simple really.
Other people on this board don’t seem to think that most people can do this. Because of my experieces with SUV’s, and my knowledge of what they are good for, I disagree with them.
JXJohns, I’m completely serious.
My earlier comment was indeed in jest (or at least angry sarcasm), but this particular gentleman has dick issues.
Let me put this another way. It doesn’t really matter that this fella doesn’t think people need 4 wheel drive. I’m living proof that he is wrong. Whether or not an artificial market was made for SUVs is irreverent, it does not make the vehicle any less useful.
Yeah, you’re not helping.
What exactly is the problem with wanting a world with safer roads, less traffic congestion, fewer wasted resources, and less pollution? Do you think it’s unreasonable, if SUVs are going to be used as cars, to make them subject to the same regulations as cars? Should we dump ALL regulations, and go back to the gas-guzzling, smog-belching cars of the 50’s and 60’s? How is simply not encouraging people to buy a more dangerous, more polluting, and less efficient vehicle than they need the same as being “police”? We don’t have to tell people not to buy them, just stop encouraging them, that’s all.