So I ask, why get an SUV?

[Casio]

And as a separate reply, Jack did not base his choice SOLELY on looks. Looks was an important consideration, but not a primary qualifier.

You just said it was a primary qualifier!

Jack Doe NEEDS a vehicle that can carry 5 people + 30 cubic feet of stuff on a regular basis.

Jack WANTS a vehicle that is good looking.

All other qualities are secondary. Nice to have, but not crucial to his choice.

I'm not saying that looks shouldn't be taken into account at all. But it shouldn't be a primary qualifier.

There are many SUVs that have similar fuel consumption, a fine turning circle, rear vision and good handling, compared to a people mover or wagon.

Since we're talking about SUV X vs People Mover Y, you can't really compare the two. But on average, I think it would be safe to assume that the People Mover/Wagon would be better in all those above cases in a comparative vehicle.

I don't get it. Should everyone start making life choices based on your personal criteria?

It sounds like you think everyone should be a frugal as you are. If cheap is an overriding virtue, why aren't you taking the bus? Or riding a bicycle?

If I took a bus, it would cost me ~$3 a day for 5 days at school. So $15 a week. It costs me less then $15 a week to drive to school. I can't actually get a bus to work, so I would have to walk. Which would take me a good 90minutes because there is no walkway, so I'd have start walking at 6am in the dark on the side of a unlit 100km/h road, in the mud and bush. But you're right, it's a fantastic idea.

I think everyone should be as frugal as I am. I don't need an SUV to run around to the shops or drive around the city, nor does anyone else.

 

[YSSMAN]

But a vehicle should not be purchased based on looks. Especially, when the vehicle uses more fuel, has no turning circle, rear vision, or handling ability in comparison to a people mover or wagon. (people-mover=mini van, in Aussie speak).

I think you forget that Americans are very self-centered and obsessed with our personal images not only to what we project to others, but how we make ourselves feel on the inside as well. Thats why vehicles like the H2 and Prowler sold well, they produced an image to people that you were VIP, better than them, etc and to the driver it made them feel better because no one had them.

Take me for example. I brought my car because it does what I need it to do. Drive me 5 minutes to school, 5 minutes to work, and the occasional city trip. It has 80 hp, and it's purple and it was cheap. However, there are plenty of people at my school who have parents who have SUVs, for nothing but driving to the shops and back.

Common sense is something people have, and some people don't. Oddly enough, my first car was a purple VW with 81 BHP and I wen't fine in the snow and hauled around enough people to be adequate. But my friends in high school all had better cars. Acura RSX Type-S', Subie WRX, BMW 330ci, Mustang GTs, Cadillac Escalades, Lexus SC430s, etc. Did they need them? No, they were only 17 years old. Did their parents need their GMC Denalis and Lincoln Navigators? No, but they bought them anyway.

Wanting an SUV is not enough reason to have one. I want to start driving an 18-Wheeler around, hell, I want to drive a Tank around, but I won't, because it's stupid, pointless and my car does my job much more effectively.

Again, common sense is something that not all Americans (I suppose the entire world) possesses. People have money and they spend it to show people that they have money. Why do you think the DeVos kids (yes, the grandkids of the guy who founded Amway, my parent's boss) all had SUVs? Because they wanted to prove to kids like me that they are better in every imaginable way in comparison to me.

---

If you get someone like my Father who has driven vans for the last 10 years because they fit his needs, but then had those needs change, and thus was able to move up to an SUV, is that not the correct choise to make? His beloved Chevrolet Astro was going out of production, no longer had enough room, and didn't have enough power to continue to do work around the property. Thus, his needs had finially caught up to his wants, as he had wanted an Avalanche since they had first appeared.

But, he didn't just go out and buy one. He looked a vans (larger ones, Express), pickups (Silverado Quad-Cab 1500), SUVs (Tahoe), and thus decided to meet in the middle, again being the Avalanche.

...If you want someone to be mad at, be angry at people like my stepmother. She has no need to be driving a GMC Envoy (For the Europeans in the crowd : roughly the size of an Explorer, 291 BHP I6), but because she wanted one she bought one. She has two kids, and for some reason her 2003 Nissan Altima with Blizzaks weren't cutting it. The funny part is, right after she bought it, gas went up to $3.00 a gallon, now she is thinking about going back to a car.

---

Kids, SUV drive is a two-way street. Some people need them (my father), some people want them (my stepmother), but I think we can all agree that there are often times better choises to be made given peoples needs/wants.

But in a country that is obsessed with image, trends, etc SUVs still are a popular item to have. However, if you look at the sales reports today, SUV sales are tanking quickly. I think GM was down nearly 40% on SUV and truck sales, Ford and DaimlerChrysler not fairing much better.

 

[///M-Spec]

You just said it was a primary qualifier!

I'm not saying that looks shouldn't be taken into account at all. But it shouldn't be a primary qualifier.

Jack NEEDS to be able to carry 5 + stuff. That is the primary qualifier. Looks is a WANT, and therefore NOT a qualifier. A vehicle that doesn't carry 5 + stuff does NOT qualify. A vehicle that can DOES qualify. A good looking vehicle DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY qualify. The first condition needs to be met.

Since we're talking about SUV X vs People Mover Y, you can't really compare the two. But on average, I think it would be safe to assume that the People Mover/Wagon would be better in all those above cases in a comparative vehicle.

I think that's an unwarranted assumption. There are many minivans out there with not so good visibility. But that's really besides the point, isn't? Everything you said could be true, but I would still say that people should buy what they like.

If I took a bus, it would cost me ~$3 a day for 5 days at school. So $15 a week. It costs me less then $15 a week to drive to school. I can't actually get a bus to work, so I would have to walk. Which would take me a good 90minutes because there is no walkway, so I'd have start walking at 6am in the dark on the side of a unlit 100km/h road, in the mud and bush. But you're right, it's a fantastic idea.

Factoring in the cost of the vehicle? Insurance? Upkeep?

So how about that bicycle?

I think everyone should be as frugal as I am. I don't need an SUV to run around to the shops or drive around the city, nor does anyone else.

I think everyone should decide for themselves whether they should walk, ride a bike, take the bus, drive a car, pickup truck, SUV, full sized van or RV. What can I say? I have this funny notion about personal liberty and the freedom to make choices, good, bad or indifferent.


M

 

[Wolfe]

Then following your logic, I would assume it would also be fine and dandy if I questioned your wholesale condemation of SUV owners as not being very fair. Free speech goes both ways, right?

Of course. It would be hypocritical for that not to be true.

That's why I haven't called you names for disagreeing with me, like a certain other GTP member...

First off I think you're making a fairly unwarranted assumption: that many SUV buyers feel they NEED an SUV. What you're implying here is that they pick the SUV because they're convinced it's the only choice. Despite what M5Power says, even the most clueless car buyer is aware of the existance of minivans and wagons.

And even IF an SUV owner phrased it as such, I would argue that it isn't as illogical as you make out to be.

Jack Doe NEEDS a vehicle that can carry 5 people + 30 cubic feet of stuff on a regular basis.

Jack WANTS a vehicle that is good looking.

All other qualities are secondary. Nice to have, but not crucial to his choice.

Both Minivan X and SUV Y satisfy those needs. But he thinks SUV Y is the only one that looks good. Jack buys SUV Y because it satisfies his NEEDS and gives him something he WANTS.

So if you ask Jack why he bought an SUV and he says "oh, I need it for carrying all these people and their stuff". This would be a true statement. The fact that an alternative exists doesn't negate the original NEED for something that carries 5 people and their stuff.

And if you were to ask Jack why he didn't get a minivan and he answered, "because they're boring to look at and to drive", would that be illogical? Is Jack a bad person we should all poo-poo because he wants a good looking ride?

I would wager MOST SUV owners are like Jack.

A fair argument, but I would wager that most SUV owners do not need to carry 5 passengers and 30 cubic feet of space on a regular basis. Anyone who does deserves to consider SUVs, as far as I'm concerned. I'm anti-SUV, but I'm not stupid.

Still, I think you're giving people too much credit -- with the stigma that has been attached to wagons and minivans, when someone decides that they need a vehicle with more space, the first thing to pop into their head is most likely "SUV," and minivans or wagons may not even enter into the equation.

Another problem is that you've forgotten another alternative to SUVs, wagons, and minivans -- cars. I mentioned earlier in this thread that I probably do just as much people- and stuff-hauling as John C. Eeyoh who lives in downtown New York and drives a BMW X5. In the last SUV thread, Famine brought up the fact that he used his little MX-3 to carry all of the equipment and TVs for a GT4 tournament, or something like that.

Of course you do. I don't even entirely disagree with the things you are saying. Just the part about it being an issue of "logic".

You can hate on SUVs all you like. I may have one, but I don't especially care much for them in general (even though I like mine --the stupid thing), you're not hurting my feelings or anything.

But when you make the leap from "SUVs don't make any sense for most people" to "people are bad (or stupid or shallow, etc) because they buy SUVs", that's when I have to put my 2 cents in. I personally feel it's a bit daft to make judgements on a person's character based on what sort of car they drive (unless it's a Daewoo, of course, in which case those bastards deserve it).

And it's not just you specifically, but rather most of the haters I see in this thread. Your post just caught my eye because you made it an issue of logic.

I'm betting that's more of a result of my personality showing through on this somewhat-emotionally-heated debate, rather than an unnatural, illogical, and irreversible hatred for SUV owners. My friends and I are extremely judgmental by nature (something we do for fun), and I generally hold the belief that almost everyone on this nation -- and to a somewhat lesser degree, the world -- is a complete moron.

To put it another way, I hate a lot of people -- careless, ignorant SUV owners just happen to be a category amongst those people.

Let me ask you this question: If someone assumed you own a BMW ('bling bling') because you wanted to impress people, would you think that would be fair? It's very easy to think the worst of people, isn't it?

Um...yeah, that would be fair. That's the BMW stereotype, and I bought mine knowing fully well that it would apply to me. If, for some reason, I wanted to buy an SUV, then I would expect to be looked at like some right-leaning conservative jerk who doesn't care about the environment.

Such images are simply a part of life, and you have to deal with them.

 

[YSSMAN]

Still, I think you're giving people too much credit -- with the stigma that has been attached to wagons and minivans, when someone decides that they need a vehicle with more space, the first thing to pop into their head is most likely "SUV," and minivans or wagons may not even enter into the equation.

I think it will depend greatly on what generation of folks you are talking about. My parents (the end of the baby-boomers) seem to think that SUVs are the way to go when it comes to practicality in America today, but talk to most folks who are younger and they would disagree.

Generation X and Y, of which I presume you and I both belong, will be the one to end the SUV fad. Wagons are on the rise in popularity, and it is matter of time before hatchbacks catch back on as well. Thankfully we possess the knowlege that SUVs aren't that great, and we realise that they aren't as cool.

 

[daan]

Show me a short-wheelbase Saturn Relay. Truly. Drive a short wheelbase Saturn Relay UP TO MY DOOR and I will give you ONE BILLION DOLLARS.

Hmmm

goes off to buy a Saturn Relay and a chainsaw....

 

[Famine]

But a vehicle should not be purchased based on looks.

Why not?

Take me for example. I brought my car because it does what I need it to do. Drive me 5 minutes to school, 5 minutes to work, and the occasional city trip. It has 80 hp, and it's purple and it was cheap.

I think everyone should be as frugal as I am.

Frugal? With 80hp, you're practically killing the planet!11!!one

You have nearly double the power of a sensible car, like:

(FIAT Seicento, Chevrolet Matiz, VW Lupo)

Not to mention the MCC Smart Car (ForTwo) or Citroen 2CV. Think of the children! Won't someone please think of the children!

Wanting an SUV is not enough reason to have one.

Yes it is.

In fact, I want a beer.

*goes to fridge, gets beer*

Oh but wait, wanting one isn't enough reason to have one.

*puts beer back*

I want to start driving an 18-Wheeler around

Google "Chris Eubank".

hell, I want to drive a Tank around, but I won't, because it's stupid, pointless and my car does my job much more effectively.

Good for you. Now allow everyone else to make their own choices.


Incidentally, I'm not pro-SUV in any way.

 

[Casio]

Frugal? With 80hp, you're practically killing the planet!11!!one

You have nearly double the power of a sensible car, like:


(FIAT Seicento, Chevrolet Matiz, VW Lupo)

Not to mention the MCC Smart Car (ForTwo) or Citroen 2CV. Think of the children! Won't someone please think of the children!

Well. I just might. When I can afford any of them. Or when any of them apart from the ForTwo and the Matiz are here in Australia. (Both of which can't be brought new anymore anyway)

Good for you. Now allow everyone else to make their own choices.

People are generally idiots. And make stupid choices.



Holden Australia has it right.

Want something with AWD, power and can carry 5 and fair sized load.
Holden Adventra

(From ~41,000AUD/~31,000USD)

Want something with a tray and can still carry 5?
Holden Crewman

(From ~33,000AUD/~24,500USD)

Just want a wagon that can carry 5?

(From 36,000AUD/~27,000USD)

Holden doesn't even have a full size SUV at the moment.

 

[daan]

But a vehicle should not be purchased based on looks.

Why not?

Yeah, why not? Mine was.

*puts beer back*

I should think so too. It's only 10 o'clock in the morning!

 

[Famine]

But they are THEIR choices. You cannot make them for them.


Incidentally, why is not being sold new a barrier to getting the Smart and Matiz? And when can anyone not afford to buy a 2CV? My CAT can afford a 2CV and she has no concept of money or barter systems.


I trust you saw the point though. To you, 80hp is adequate and 160hp is overkill, but to someone else 30hp is adequate (Seicento really does have 32hp... ) and 80hp is overkill. They might hate you with as much fervour as you apparently hate SUV owners - and claim you make stupid choices and would like to force the whole planet into driving 2CVs...

 

[Casio]

Incidentally, why is not being sold new a barrier to getting the Smart and Matiz? And when can anyone not afford to buy a 2CV? My CAT can afford a 2CV and she has no concept of money or barter systems.

Your cat doesn't live in a country were 2CVs are rarer then gold. Maybe in English 2CVs are as common as rain. Searching the #1 used car site, there are two 2CVs for sale. Which both incidently, cost more then I paid for my car.

and claim you make stupid choices and would like to force the whole planet into driving 2CVs...

Wouldn't worry me the slightest if we all drove 2CVs.

 

[KSaiyu]

I don't mind them as long as I don't see them in London, then it's just bloody stupid. And I know it's a generalisation, but I hate the way a lot of people drive them around here as if they own the road and YOU must pull in in a narrow street because their more powerful/rich and have the bigger car. Can't understand the point of them in town at all, epecially when used as stupid Chelsea Tractors.

 

[Famine]

Why are you so keen to stop people from having any power to decide what they do with their lives? It's very concerning - it appears that you think everyone should live exactly as you do and anyone who doesn't is wrong.

Wouldn't worry me the slightest if we all drove 2CVs.

Have you ever seen the mess made when a 2CV crashes?

Oh, and don't forget that they were originally designed for driving over ploughed fields carrying eggs, so if you don't use them for that you should drive something else instead. Or something.

 

[daan]

Its easy to clean up though. All you need is a brush and a dustpan!

 

[Casio]

Why are you so keen to stop people from having any power to decide what they do with their lives? It's very concerning - it appears that you think everyone should live exactly as you do and anyone who doesn't is wrong.

I think people should be persuaded from doing dumb and senseless things. Example: Buying a 2.5 ton off-road vehicle, which will never go off road. To preform the duties that the average car/wagon does better.

Have you ever seen the mess made when a 2CV crashes?

Again. No. Because we really don't have 2CVs in Australia. (I found 2)

 

[Famine]

I think people should be persuaded from doing dumb and senseless things. Example: Buying a 2.5 ton off-road vehicle, which will never go off road. To preform the duties that the average car/wagon does better.

If we don't make mistakes, we don't learn. If we don't learn, we (as a species) die - or the first time we make a mistake we actually DO die.

Why DO you want to control people anyway? Why shouldn't someone buy an SUV over a car because they like the SUV more?

Again. No. Because we really don't have 2CVs in Australia. (I found 2)

Do you have an internet in Australia?

Top Gear did a very interesting comparison between a 2CV and a Ford Mondeo, as to how they handled crosswinds (albeit very extreme crosswinds, by way of engines 1 and 2 of a Virgin Atlantic 747). Should be able to find it somewhere like Youtube.

2CVs are made of a material the same consistency as a sparrow's nest. Driving one at anything close to a sensible speed for a normal car (50mph) is ludicrous and suicidal. Making everyone - the people you describe as "idiots" - drive one would be a great way to push the road death rates up. And that wouldn't worry you "in the slightest".

 

[Dave A]

I'm not saying that looks shouldn't be taken into account at all. But it shouldn't be a primary qualifier.

Besides that not being a primary qualifyer, shouldn't that still be upto the person who's spending his money. Face it, looks are very important in everything, most notably our house. If your going to call someone dumb, stupid or shallow for spending a bit more on a car simply because it looks good then everyone is dumb, stupid or shallow for buying that nice new kitchen, or not buying the cheapest carpet around ect. Looks have a large part to play in vast number of decisions you, me and the other guy make in life.

 

[NismoR34Ztune]

it's a matter of taste......SUV are not very tasty for me give me a manouverable coupe/saloon/sedan, that's my taste

 

[YSSMAN]

@ CASIO:

We Americans would love to have vehicles like the Adventra, Crewman, and Acclaim, but unfortunately GM North America does not see a market for every one of those vehicles. Given that we primarily live in a truck market, our choises are a bit different...

AWD, seating for five, and can carry (not tow) a decent sized load:

The Chevrolet Equinox goes for $23,000 USD, about $31,000 AUS.

AWD, seating for five, and a "tray" or a "bed":

The Chevrolet Colorado goes for $24,000 USD, about $32,300 AUS.

Unfortunately, GM's North American Wagon line is limited. So it leaves us with Saab:

The Saab 9-3 SportCombi is the best choise at $33,000 USD or $44,500 AUS.

...We have choises, but they are limited (at the moment). The crossover market is growing and changing, and most people who want a truck skip the Colorado and go for the full-size Silverado in most circumstances. The Wagon segment however is just pitiful in the US, especially for GM, most of which consist of Vectra Wagons (Chevrolet Malibu Maxx, Saab 9-3), the Subaru Imprazea/Saab 9-2X, and the 9-5 SportCombi.

 

[GilesGuthrie]

I bought the French one...

Disco & Espace, getting it on

 

[Onikaze]

The Equinox is, in my eyes, a mutated Mini-van.


Just to put things back into perspective here.


My biggest issue, is with the massive full size SUV's, which are generally the ones that I hear the "I need the space" argument for.

Hence why I limited my comparison to the American full sizers, and the same manufacturers Minivans.

I've stated time and time again, I think the trend towards CUV's is great, because a CUV is nothing more than a macho'D up Minivan.

Thank you for pointing out the couple of flaws which were at the fringes of my point, M5Power, you still managed to completely miss the idea of my comparison, between Full Size SUV's, and the same manufacturers Mini-Vans.

Why limit it as such, because conceiveably you could walk onto the same lot and check out both of them.

True, it was an oversight to leave out the Armada/Quest, but I can't believe anyone buys the Armada after it and it's sister the QX56 got the worst ratings ever given out by several different publications, last I heard.

I didn't notice that the Relay/Terraza or whatnot are only the extended versions, but they also don't have full size SUV's in their lineup.

One more time, Crossover Utility Vehicles are Minivans, get one instead of a "real" Minivan if you don't like vehicular emasculation, there are lots of people who think Full Size SUV's are overcompensation, which is emasculating in itself.

 

[1X83Z]

You are comparing four vehicles:

Chevrolet Tahoe vs. Chevrolet Uplander
Ford Expedition vs. Ford Freestar
Nissan Armada vs. Nissan Quest
Toyota Sequoia vs. Toyota Sienna

Essentially, we've had a 14-page discussion for no reason. Go away.

 

[the Interceptor]

Essentially, we've had a 14-page discussion for no reason. Go away.

Well, I have learned something: there's no point in discussing with you. Go away.

Regards
the Interceptor

 

[1X83Z]

Well, I have learned something: there's no point in discussing with you. Go away.

Regards
the Interceptor

That's good, because I haven't been discussing with you. In case you haven't noticed, I've been ignoring you since page four.

 

[the Interceptor]

That's good, because I haven't been discussing with you. In case you haven't noticed, I've been ignoring you since page four.

I did notice that, but I've made my points concerning you, and concerning SUVs, so I'm out of this subject.

You can keep on ignoring me if you like, but I certainly won't ignore you, and "discussing" in this thread, I've learned which way you go. Maybe we'll have a proper talk on another subject one day (which I'd really enjoy), but at the moment, I don't think you belong in a forum like this, maybe not in any forum at all.

Regards
the Interceptor

 

[Sage]

This is going about as well as trying to freeze a popsicle in an oven.