So I ask, why get an SUV?

[Famine]

And apart from people that really need it, like your father, I only know one reason why somebody would want an SUV:

Yeah, and no-one else has EVER bought any car they thought was "cool".

I don't see why this is a bad point anyway.


YSSMAN - I'm "European" (*spits*). I just like choice. Consumers want "x", manufacturers supply "x", everybody's happy and Zoidberg eats, hurrah!

 

[the Interceptor]

Yeah, and no-one else has EVER bought any car they thought was "cool".

I don't see why this is a bad point anyway.

It isn't, but it is the point Onikaze was trying to make, hopefully to the disgust of M5 Power.

Regards
the Interceptor

 

[Kylehnat]

It seems that the only reason to get an SUV is because it's "Cool".

In American culture, SUV's represent wealth and power. As greedy Americans, we want everyone around us to think we're wealthy and powerful. Hence, during the late 1990's, the inexplicable SUV craze began. Ignorant, newly-crowned millionaires started looking away from sports cars. Why buy a $50,000 roadster when you can buy a $50,000 Escalade that can crush that sports car? But uh oh....Ford just released the Excursion! Now the Escalade became the SUV world's micropenis. And so on.... The SUV era really got out of hand, and yes, it was because people wanted to be "cool". While no one can afford to re-fuel a Ford Excursion anymore (it cost $60+ when gas was $1.20 ), people still want that symbol of superiority. Therefore, the SUV remains.

And seriously, if practicality was the only thing that mattered, nobody would need more than 4 cylinders and 115 hp. Regardless of what you (not aimed at anyone in particular) want to think, almost every car-purchase decision has a coolness-factor thrown in, not just when buying SUV's.

 

[1X83Z]

Barring the AWD slip up (I was honestly shocked to learn Dodge had stopped offering it on their Grand Caravan, btw) I know for a fact that the only Minivan currently offered which is larger than a full size SUV is the Freestar.

I TOLD you not to be stupid earlier and here you are being stupid again.

You "know for a fact" that the only minivan currently offered which is larger than a full-size SUV is the Freestar, then why the hell are the Buick Terraza, Chevrolet Uplander, Honda Odyssey, Hyundai Entourage, Kia Sedona, Mercury Monterey, Nissan Quest, Pontiac Montana SV6, and Saturn Relay LONGER THAN THE FORD FREESTAR?

Minivans average 190 Inches or so, full size SUV's 200.

THE AVERAGE LENGTH OF A MINIVAN IS 199.3 INCHES. I TOLD YOU BEFORE TO DO BETTER RESEARCH. You're obviously not up to the task of accurately defending your thread. Please stop posting in it if you're not going to post FACTS, and especially if you're going to simply LIE.

The one thing I hate - and the one thing I will get emotional about - is people who cannot research their points, and people who make up statistics to get what they want accomplished. NEVER do this again - on this forum, or ANYWHERE.

Re: 525XiT, I've never been a big fan of BMW Wagons myself, but I recalled seeing it, and sure enough I found the mention where I saw it, either way the 530XiT exists and is virtually the same thing.

It's due out for 2007. You've never seen one. DO BETTER RESEARCH

Ordinary people can drive RWD cars, torquey ones too, on snow and ice. Don't be stupid.

"You" and "the point" aren't even in the same time zone right now - you've missed it by that much.

In accidents between cars and bicycles, 99.999% of fatalities occur on the bicycle.

BAN CARS

0-60 is a pointless statistic for passing. 30-50 is what matters most, but I find the idea of measuring 30-50 in gear like some car mags do pointless.

Obviously, you're both right. However the 30-50 statistic is basically published nowhere, and the 0-60 statistic can give you an idea about how quick the car is, even if it's not the most apt statistic to use.

On the subject of Doug, you need to remember that he lives at high altitude, in the mountains, and surrounded mostly by large highways. Therefore, acceleration is king in his estimation, because it's what he needs most. He also, as most of you have figured out, assumes that anything not meeting his personal criteria is cack.

I'm sorry, but I can't justify a vehicle that does 0-60 in 11.5 seconds. For Colorado or for anywhere. Of course, those vans (the GM ones) are **** anyway so it doesn't make much difference.

At the same time, since the beginning of the SUV trend, America has dropped from 5th, to 9th in Automotive Fatalities, in the world.

CORRELATION

DOES NOT EQUAL

CAUSATION

This is the single stupidest sentence ever uttered on GTPlanet. Back in the days of LEBSTA, back before that dude claimed to be "the blackest Asian in Maryland," back when Josh and Dudebusta posted and that kid troy ran away from home - nothing will ever compare to the above sentence.

You think the SUV trend has caused a spike in automotive fatalities? I personally attribute it to the Clinton administration - since it was there from the beginning of the spike in traffic deaths.

Or perhaps it has something to do with my own birth - since I came along right before the spike.

Or maybe - and I know this'll sound crazy to someone like you - but JUST MAYBE it has something to do with the speed limit being raised from 55mph to 65mph-75mph, which also happened at that time.

Actually no - I'm probably crazy.

SUV's are M-16's and Ballistic armor, eliminating the safety of the vest, and Semi's are Miniguns, capable of killing more people faster than any other vehicle, but unwieldy and not as easy for anyone to just get a hold of.

Your stupidity scares me.

The Ford Explorer weighs 4615lbs.

The Volkswagen Phaeton weighs 5194lbs.

Make a thread in which you rant and rave about how awful Volkswagen Phaetons are. After all, it gets worse economy than an Explorer, it's longer, and it's clearly more of a killing machine - since it's 500lbs heavier.

Go on - make the thread. I dare you.

that SUV purchases are often made on the basis of "wants" rather than "needs."

Ugh. See what Famine has brought up about "needs." I'm not about to get into that philosophical argument. But as mentioned, it's hard to justify a need for any sort of motorized vehicle, or basically anything, ever, at any point.

CAN ANYONE ANSWER ME THE FOLLOWING QUESTION:

Why is a Honda Pilot not an acceptable purchase but a Dodge Magnum is a perfectly acceptable one?

Pilot gets the same fuel economy, it's shorter in length, and it has more room in the back. Why does the extra foot Pilot has on Magnum in height make Pilot public enemy number one? Can anyone answer that in a sane fashion? Anyone at all?

 

[the Interceptor]

Can anyone answer that in a sane fashion? Anyone at all?

You mean M5Power-sane, or the real sane?

Why is a Honda Pilot not an acceptable purchase but a Dodge Magnum is a perfectly acceptable one?

Well, what's that extra foot you mentioned there for?

 

[Kylehnat]

At the same time, since the beginning of the SUV trend, America has dropped from 5th, to 9th in Automotive Fatalities, in the world.

CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION...This is the single stupidest sentence ever uttered on GTPlanet.

Nowhere does the original quote say anything about causation. Nor does stating a correlation imply causation.

Quit being a dick.

 

[daan]

Don't be stupid.

Don't be stupid.

Don't be stupid.

(all in the one post)

I TOLD you not to be stupid earlier and here you are being stupid again.

Your stupidity scares me.

Would you please stop calling people stupid? It doesn't help your arguments.

And Kyle, don't call people dicks either.

EDIT: This was posted a year and a half ago, but its still apt today.

Doug is right. Everyone else shut up.

 

[Poverty]

Most people dont require SUV's at all. Thats why allot of people try to sell up when fuel prices rocket, or burn theyre SUV to collect insurance.

Cant wait for when fuel prices permantely stay high, then we will soon see that SUV's arent required.

 

[Dave A]

Most people don't require cars at all, most could get by walking or using public transport but they don't want to.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Most people dont require SUV's at all. Thats why allot of people try to sell up when fuel prices rocket, or burn theyre SUV to collect insurance.

Cant wait for when fuel prices permantely stay high, then we will soon see that SUV's arent required.

Either that or we'll run out of fuel and the engines won't be powerful enough to overcome their weight and the drag caused by SUVs.

 

[Onikaze]

Honda Pilot is fine.

How many of those Minivans that are longer than the Freestar are extended length models?

Don't be a condescending ass, don't be a condescending ass, don't be a condescending ass.

Originally, if you notice, I was simply comparing U.S. Minivans against THE SAME MANUFACTURERS Full size SUV's.

Crazy idea, I know.

Don't be a condescending ass.

True, the rise in fatalities since SUV's got popular is just a correlation.

The fact that you are 98% more likely to die if you're in the car in a car/SUV collision, than the SUV driver is not a correlation, and the cause is the incompatible SUV > Car interface.

In the UK, you have this thing called public transportation.

We have approximately jack squat for it over here, our bus system is laughable, you can catch a train to get where you need to go in a couple of places, and in the right cities you can ride the subway.

The rest of the time, you need a bike and strong legs, or a car to get around in America.

No you don't need any more than a 115 Hp 4-Banger.

Famine, your father could hop into a minivan or a small SUV just fine, he doesn't need a full size SUV, especially since you have to climb UP into them, which would be just as bad for his hips as a smaller/lower car.

The whole point of this ranting thread is, noone actually needs an SUV outside of maybe 1% of the owners.

I never once said you can't get one, or that you can't want one and get one, I was just pointing out the absurdity of the claim that it is the best vehicle for the job, and M5Power, don't be a condescending ass, it doesn't help your case.

 

[JCE]

most people dont need the 6 things was M5Power posted. those needs are easily covered by a plethora of other vehicles.

they want them. wants and needs are different.


they may need any one of them at any given time, but not all the time
they may need most of them only once a year. but as famine pointed out, do you then buy four different cars for different purposes? or buy one that does them all.

ultimately it comes down to perception. the marketers have sucessfully sold the unwashed masses on the capability and ruggedness of the SUV, and the sheep have bought, and bought it big, literally and metaphorically. when the single mom buys tahoe or expedition, she isnt doing so to have any of the attributes that were posted. she "feels safe" in that behemoth, as the height advantage imparts a sense of forwarning to impending disaster up ahead. and all she cares about is little tiffanies safety and so on. it doesnt hurt that she can put all of little timmys crap in the car and not have to worry about it all fitting in.
and since other advertisers, ahem subaru, have advised us the best accident is the one you avoid, the minions have bought the "safety" aspect hook, line, and sinker. nevermind that SUVS handle much worse than cars and most minivans.

there are few people who need the full seating capability of a full size suv. or the towing capacity. or the other things. but seeing as buying four cars is more impractical, it just ends up being that way.

for me, renting works best. im single with no children. i drive a 300E. the few times i need to move people or stuff i rent a suitable vehicle. i save on gas (mid 20s based on how i drive) get lower insurance, better handling and manouverability, and a car whose safety reputation is second to none. additionally, my cars size is sufficient for 99% of the passenger and load carrying i need. in fact i have yet to rent a car for lack of space in mine. but seein as i need to move some stuff from pheonix to los angeles, and have a family coming out to vist from england, that day will be soon when i visit the rental car booth. that sort of logic and common sense isnt prevalent in the general public.

to sum up;
most people dont need the attributes of the mega SUVs
most people only have the need once in a while
most people want them
marketers are clever at telling you you need more than you do
and that SUVs inherent height advantage is a safety feauture (although no one has actually come out and said that.)
most people are sheep
im not a sheep

Ladies and gents his guy's post basically says it all. I've not replied in this topic the last few days because it's on fire and I'm waiting for the feuerwehr to come in and pour water on the flames.

The solution to this whole mess is this, give us European gas prices (roughly $8.00 per US gallon?) and we will see if these people "need" SUVs (or even minivans for that matter) afterall. Like in the quoted text, what people think they need and what they want are obviously too different things. And what people think they need is often what they want because they are either eaisly manipulated or are flat out just a sheep in a group of other sheep.

*edit*
And if Ford and GM made "Magnum" style wagons again maybe more people would buy them...and not SUVs. You can tow with it, haul with it, and seat your family comfortably with it.

 

[Famine]

Famine, your father could hop into a minivan or a small SUV just fine, he doesn't need a full size SUV, especially since you have to climb UP into them, which would be just as bad for his hips as a smaller/lower car.

Nope. Why would he get a minivan anyway? It's not like he needed the 7 seats or superior load space is it?

He could grab onto the grab handle and pull himself in, and just swivel in his seat and drop delicately out. No problems.

No other vehicle suited both his requirements in a vehicle AND his budget at the time.

 

[Onikaze]

I TOLD you not to be stupid earlier and here you are being stupid again.

You "know for a fact" that the only minivan currently offered which is larger than a full-size SUV is the Freestar, then why the hell are the Buick Terraza, Chevrolet Uplander, Honda Odyssey, Hyundai Entourage, Kia Sedona, Mercury Monterey, Nissan Quest, Pontiac Montana SV6, and Saturn Relay LONGER THAN THE FORD FREESTAR?

Terraza, Uplander, Relay, Monata, are all only longer in extended versions.

Monterey=Freestar

Is the Quest really longer? Shocking, are you sure it wasn't an extended version, as I've been comparing the normal short version, of which the Freestar doesn't have one.

Good job pointing out the Sedona/Entourage...same thing aren't they? Oh and the Odyssey, I meant to check up on that but couldn't remember what the name of the Honda van was.

 

[Onikaze]

Nope. Why would he get a minivan anyway? It's not like he needed the 7 seats or superior load space is it?

He could grab onto the grab handle and pull himself in, and just swivel in his seat and drop delicately out. No problems.

No other vehicle suited both his requirements in a vehicle AND his budget at the time.

You probably don't get older Dodge Caravans over there, they have the same handles, generally cost less than an Explorer of the same year, and in non-Grand Caravan trim aren't big 7 seat vehicles.

A Honda CR-V has great seat height for older people, I recommended one to an older lady I know in my area.

Even then, an older Explorer is barely a Full Size SUV these days, but he is definitely one of the few that would need the seat height, kudos on pointing that out.

 

[Dave A]

In the UK, you have this thing called public transportation.

Public transport or not, my point is that people still use cars even though they don't need them, not even to get into town or back. When I used to bus it into town to work it took roughly 45 mins, I have walked home from town a few times in nice weather and it took me roughly 50-60 mins. No I'm not preaching for everyone to walk, I'm just saying that if you want to preach to SUV owners about needs and wants, look at what YOU really need or just want first because there's a suprising ammount in life we really don't need.

No you don't need any more than a 115 Hp 4-Banger.

You don't even need that.

I never once said you can't get one, or that you can't want one and get one, I was just pointing out the absurdity of the claim that it is the best vehicle for the job.

This depends, i wouldn't assume every SUV owner I see doesn't get good use from one, but I will agree that people who just use them in the same way as I use my 306 for example could have saved a lot of cash anf petrol ect. However, it is still thier money and best vehicle for the job or not, it's thier choice to make regarding owning one or not.

 

[Famine]

You probably don't get older Dodge Caravans over there, they have the same handles, generally cost less than an Explorer of the same year, and in non-Grand Caravan trim aren't big 7 seat vehicles.

They're called Chrysler Voyagers over here, and were the first vehicles EVER to score 0% in Euro-NCAP's front-end collision test.

And are 10% more expensive, in base form, than an Explorer of the same year.

And are 30% slower - unless you get the more expensive 3.3, which is 10% slower with the same fuel economy (for 50 less ponies).


Not where the smart money goes, I'm afraid.

Oh, and they're honking ugly and the only viable alternative to a vasectomy.

 

[1X83Z]

Well, what's that extra foot you mentioned there for?

What's the extra foot on the end of the Magnum there for? Why does a foot up equal awful, but a foot back equals "super cool wagon"?

Explain, whoever you are!

Nowhere does the original quote say anything about causation. Nor does stating a correlation imply causation.

Quit being a dick.

If you can't see the OBVIOUS implication, then you're out of your mind. Hell - if he didn't believe SUVs were the cause, then he wouldn't have posted that statistic. So HE saw causation, when there obviously was none. And if he didn't, then the statistic is irrelevant (which it is), so he's wrong anyway.

Call me a dick again and B9 Tribeca will bite your face off. You think B9 Tribeca doesn't exist in Seattle? Just watch him.

Honda Pilot is fine.

How many of those Minivans that are longer than the Freestar are extended length models?

Um, none?

Only two minivans presently on sale even OFFER extended-length models: the Dodge Caravan, and the Chevrolet Uplander. The Caravan's extended length model isn't longer than Freestar (it's shorter than Freestar by the gigantic margin of 0.5 inches) and while the extended Uplander is longer than Freestar, the extended Uplander is also sold as the regular length Buick Terraza, Saturn Relay, and Pontiac Montana SV6, nullifying that argument.

Seriously - research your arguments. It's not hard to go out and buy ConsumerGuide. Trust me - I'm not this smart. I have help.

Originally, if you notice, I was simply comparing U.S. Minivans against THE SAME MANUFACTURERS Full size SUV's.

Crazy idea, I know.

So you're not even attacking 12% of the SUV market. You are attacking merely four vehicles: the Ford Expedition, the Chevrolet Tahoe/Suburban, the Toyota Sequoia, and the Nissan Armada. Right? Because Hyundai, Saturn, Pontiac, Buick and Kia have a minivan but no large SUV, and Cadillac, GMC, Lincoln, and Land Rover offer large SUVs but no minivan. So essentially, your argument has gone from "Why buy an SUV?" to "why buy a Tahoe/Suburban, Expedition, Armada, or Sequoia?"

Very well thought-out. I applaud you. Your argument now attacks about nine percent of all SUVs sold. And it's STILL poorly-researched and even more poorly executed. I'm trying hard not to use the term "stupid" here, daan.

In the UK, you have this thing called public transportation.

We have approximately jack squat for it over here, our bus system is laughable, you can catch a train to get where you need to go in a couple of places, and in the right cities you can ride the subway.

In the UK, they have this thing called socialism. You pay out your ass in taxes and are rewarded with buses that you wait for for three hours only to have four show up at once.

Another thing you have in the UK is this thing called densely-packed cities. Now, I live in the best city, in the best state, in the best country. And my city is FORTY MILES WIDE from the westernmost suburb to the easternmost. It's also more than forty miles high (EDIT: I just read through this and by "high" I meant north to south, but feel free to laugh at me anyway). And my city isn't even that spread out. Phoenix and the Los Angeles metropolitan area would dwarf Denver, though they are not the best city in the best state by any means.

I was just pointing out the absurdity of the claim that it is the best vehicle for the job

Well, you've done a horrible job of doing that. B9 Tribeca could've done better, and he has a snout the size of a Chrysler LHS.

The solution to this whole mess is this, give us European gas prices (roughly $8.00 per US gallon?) and we will see if these people "need" SUVs (or even minivans for that matter) afterall.

That's another point that needs to be made. A few Europeans in this thread keep telling us that SUVs are stupid. Do you realise I pay ONE THIRD of what you pay for gas? I know JCE3000GT is arguing against SUVs, but the gas prices are really an argument for them, when you put us on a world scale. Just another reason why the SUV can be a sensible purchase.

Terraza, Uplander, Relay, Monata, are all only longer in extended versions.

Monterey=Freestar

Is the Quest really longer? Shocking, are you sure it wasn't an extended version, as I've been comparing the normal short version, of which the Freestar doesn't have one.

Good job pointing out the Sedona/Entourage...same thing aren't they? Oh and the Odyssey, I meant to check up on that but couldn't remember what the name of the Honda van was.

Are you KIDDING?

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. Show me a short-wheelbase Buick Terraza or Pontiac Montana, also. The standing offer is ONE BILLION DOLLARS for anyone who can produce any of these vehicles.

I asked you to do better research earlier, and I'm now BEGGING

If Monterey "=" Freestar, as you so eloquently put it, then why is the Monterey LONGER?

THERE IS NO EXTENDED VERSION OF THE NISSAN QUEST. THE ONLY VERSION HAS A 124.0" WHEELBASE AND A LENGTH OF 204.1 INCHES.

I don't believe that after all this time, people still question my car facts. Truly - have I ever posted an incorrect fact? Maybe like three, in four years. I'm not the best at anything, except car facts. You can argue with me about opinion all you want, but never argue the facts with me. YOU WILL ALWAYS LOSE

 

[Dave A]

In the UK, they have this thing called socialism. You pay out your ass in taxes and are rewarded with buses that you wait for three hours only to have four show up at once.

Whoah have you been here .

 

[Gil]

A Crewcab pickup with a cover for the bed could tow a 27' trailer, carry 4 or 5 people comfortably, and carry three dogs, plus if you took the cover off the bed, you could more easily load and carry other things, and probably get better mileage than you would with an SUV.

There is nothing an SUV can do that a Crew Cab Pickup or Minivan cannot do better.

Well, except for the bit I bolded, it can make you feel super manly apparently.

I'm late to the Party as always:
Haven't read the rest of the posts either, as per usual these days,
I have a family of eight. My shortest child is 5'8" and over 200 lbs.
When I bought the thing, I took all six of my sons to the car dealers, we tried the Expedition, Excursion, and the Suburban. They liked the Expedition, but there was no space for luggage behind the rear seats. The Suburban got nothing but complaints for lack of space, (before I even got it off the lot), The Excursion, fits all of us. And the diesel powerplant, makes bucketloads of power, and gets better mileage than either of the other two "big" SUVs.
I don't currently tow anything.
I have a minivan (with seating for 8) 22 MPG on it's best day.
I have a Ford Excursion (now called BART- for Big Ass Red Truck) that will hold 8 people comfortably over thousands of miles. 19 MPG on it's best days. As it only has 8500 miles on it, It has many "best days" to come.
Guess which one will hold all 8 of us (including my third son with his size 15 shoes) and all our gear out of the weather?
Guess which one has to have a luggage bag on the roof with all the bags wrapped in plastic to keep the contents from getting wet?
When you figure in the 2-4 MPG advantage the Van has over BART, vs the "comfort factor" and the PITA factor of dealing with the luggage using the van...guess which one we're taking on vacation when we go to Louisville, KY, Martinsville, VA, Statesville, Greensboro and Raleigh-Durham, NC and D.C. in a couple of weeks?

If you guessed Excursion, you are correct.

Add to that, Mini-vans don't have all that much advantage over an SUV in most catagories.
Both are difficult to see around.
But when the weather turns to crap, or you decide to go off the beaten path, the SUV wins hands down.
Like Duke, I only drive my SUV when I have the entire family with me, and once a month or so to keep it "exercised." Is it a "cool" vehicle? Damn Straight!! But that's the gravy, not the meat of the reason we bought it.

 

[Kylehnat]

No you don't need any more than a 115 Hp 4-Banger.

You don't even need that.

That's about what you need to comfortably make it over the mountains here. A couple of our passes are pretty steep. Even at freeway speeds, you'd have to downshift in a weaker car. I should have put a disclaimer on my original statement "needs may vary by terrain"

Call me a dick again and B9 Tribeca will bite your face off. You think B9 Tribeca doesn't exist in Seattle? Just watch him.

I've seen a few B9 Tribecas around here. Are they part of your unholy army of the night?

I think you might need to seek professional help. This isn't healthy.

 

[STLbarcelona5]

That's another point that needs to be made. A few Europeans in this thread keep telling us that SUVs are stupid. Do you realise I pay ONE THIRD of what you pay for gas? I know JCE3000GT is arguing against SUVs, but the gas prices are really an argument for them, when you put us on a world scale. Just another reason why the SUV can be a sensible purchase.

Maybe perhaps JCE3000GT is trying to just give us advice, that simply because life is good now and gas is relatively cheap, it's not going to last forever. And that maybe we should stop ignoring the fact that gas will eventually become expensive in the US too.

Sooner or later, America will become more and more like Europe auto wise, not because of personal taste or wants. But because consumers will get eventually tired of $100 to fill up a gas tank.

So lets not just completely dismiss every European who posts in this thread, we should listen to them and pay attention to their points most of all. Because they have shown that society can function perfectly well when SUVs dont run wild, and <200hp is the norm.

 

[Ä&#321;P&#296;&#1049;&#931;]

most SUV's I hate but AMERICAN VANS rock!!!!

you should feel more powerfull in one of them

 

[///M-Spec]

Geez. I can't go away for a few days without a thread going bonkers.

That's not the point of my argument. I don't care if someone buys a supercar or SUV that they know they don't need. That just makes them an enthusiast. What I do care about is that many people think they need an SUV, when they really don't. That's just ignorance.

As for those who buy SUVs for the "image" it provides, I hate them just as much as the people who buy supercars or sportscars for the "image."

How do you know people who buy SUVs think an SUV is the ONLY solution to their needs? Maybe they buy them because out of all of their options, the SUV is the one they LIKE the most?

I know lots of people who choose an SUV over a wagon or minivan because while all three types of vehicles suit their lifestyle, they get an SUV becayse LIKE THE WAY THEY LOOK. Do you consider this some kind of defect of character?

As for the 'image' question... the people out there who buy a car SOLELY to project an 'image' is really just a small portion of the car buying population. Are they out there, most probably. Are there lots of them... not compared with the larger car buying public. For most people, image is just a small aspect of all the factors involved. You make it sound like SUV owners boil everything down to 2 or 3 factors. It's just not that simple.


M

 

[Gil]

He likely drives a Trabant.

 

[Wolfe]

What a car is or isn't designed for has little bearing. What a car is or isn't needed for has little bearing. What people WANT does. People who buy SUVs WANT to drive SUVs. Manufacturers who want to sell cars to these people make SUVs for them - and have recently been making car-like SUVs to accommodate some of the issues with SUVs these people have bene reporting.

Why this is so hard to grasp I don't know.

Oh no, Famine has fallen out of the real topic of discussion, just like M5Power!

All of us anti-SUV folk understand that people want SUVs. I personally don't understand why, but hey, if that's what they want, fine.

The problem, the whole issue, at least for me, stems from the many SUV buyers that have convinced themselves that they need their vehicles, and the GTP members who have also been convinced of the same thing.

Let me put it this way:
It's fine and dandy if someone wants an SUV. In a country where free speech is granted, I assume it's also fine and dandy if someone wants to question that SUV owner's decision. What does that same SUV owner respond with? "Oh, I need it for *such-and-such*," when they really don't.

Being the logic-loving person I am, I find that offensive.

Before I make you repeat yourself with the "cars are never needed" speech, I'll say this: discussions can and do have points-of-reference. In this case, we are assuming that the buyer is going to be buying a vehicle anyway, so the "need" for a vehicle is out of the question.

How do you know people who buy SUVs think an SUV is the ONLY solution to their needs? Maybe they buy them because out of all of their options, the SUV is the one they LIKE the most?

I know lots of people who choose an SUV over a wagon or minivan because while all three types of vehicles suit their lifestyle, they get an SUV becayse LIKE THE WAY THEY LOOK. Do you consider this some kind of defect of character?

As I said in the post you quoted, I don't care if someone buys a supercar or SUV that they know they don't need. If they choose an SUV over a minivan or wagon because they want to, that's their decision and their money.

Just don't expect me to coddle them, or even agree that it was a good decision. I believe I have a right to do at least that much.

As for the 'image' question... the people out there who buy a car SOLELY to project an 'image' is really just a small portion of the car buying population. Are they out there, most probably. Are there lots of them... not compared with the larger car buying public. For most people, image is just a small aspect of all the factors involved. You make it sound like SUV owners boil everything down to 2 or 3 factors. It's just not that simple.

I'm not convinced...in this world of "bling-bling," ricer cars, midlife crises, executive saloons, etc., there are many car purchases (and/or modifications) being made with image in mind. If image didn't matter to the average person, we wouldn't see any of those things I just mentioned.

 

[Omnis]

CAN ANYONE ANSWER ME THE FOLLOWING QUESTION:

Why is a Honda Pilot not an acceptable purchase but a Dodge Magnum is a perfectly acceptable one?

Pilot gets the same fuel economy, it's shorter in length, and it has more room in the back. Why does the extra foot Pilot has on Magnum in height make Pilot public enemy number one? Can anyone answer that in a sane fashion? Anyone at all?

Sure. Magnum's got a Hemi.

 

[///M-Spec]

The problem, the whole issue, at least for me, stems from the many SUV buyers that have convinced themselves that they need their vehicles, and the GTP members who have also been convinced of the same thing.

Let me put it this way:
It's fine and dandy if someone wants an SUV. In a country where free speech is granted, I assume it's also fine and dandy if someone wants to question that SUV owner's decision. What does that same SUV owner respond with? "Oh, I need it for *such-and-such*," when they really don't.

Being the logic-loving person I am, I find that offensive.

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?

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.

As I said in the post you quoted, I don't care if someone buys a supercar or SUV that they know they don't need. If they choose an SUV over a minivan or wagon because they want to, that's their decision and their money.

Just don't expect me to coddle them, or even agree that it was a good decision. I believe I have a right to do at least that much.

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 not convinced...in this world of "bling-bling," ricer cars, midlife crises, executive saloons, etc., there are many car purchases (and/or modifications) being made with image in mind. If image didn't matter to the average person, we wouldn't see any of those things I just mentioned.

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?


M

 

[Casio]

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.

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).

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.

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.

 

[///M-Spec]

But a vehicle should not be purchased based on looks.

Why?

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

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).

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.

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.

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?

Hey a bike has great visibility, a superb turning circle and handles great. So why aren't you doing that?

Or better yet, why aren't you walking? It's good excercise.

Wanting an SUV is not enough reason to have one.

Why should someone have to justify ANY purchase? And to whom? You?

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.

Are you familar with the term "straw-man"? It's when someone creates an argument by exaggerating what he is attacking to a ridiculous extreme, thereby making it easier to attack.

For example, if I say "people should have pride in their heritage" and someone replies, "yeah, well the Nazis had pride in their heritage and look what they did." That would be a straw-man attack.

Let's not do those, m'kay?


M