SUVs, trucks stuck on car lots (Watch for incentives in Sept and Oct)

[Bozita]

New car dealers around here either own or lease "overflow" space. Those lots are currently loaded with pickups and large SUVs.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2006609020304

SUVs, trucks stuck on car lots
'06 models hit by higher gas prices

BY KATIE MERX and ANGELA TABLAC
FREE PRESS BUSINESS WRITERS

September 2, 2006


Detroit's automakers struggled to unload large inventories of trucks and SUVs last month, despite generous incentive offers, as U.S. consumers continue to favor smaller fuel-efficient vehicles.

General Motors Corp. reported on Friday a respectable month with a nearly 4% increase from last year's tepid August sales. But Ford Motor Co. continued to slide, with overall sales down 11.6% -- trucks down 21%, cars up 8.5% -- from a strong August 2005.

"We're certainly benefiting in the midsize car segment," said George Pipas, Ford's U.S. sales analysis manager, highlighting sales of the Ford Fusion and related Lincoln and Mercury models.

Toyota Motor Corp. continued its record pace, again topping DaimlerChrysler AG, but slipping back behind Ford, which it had outsold for the first time in July.

DaimlerChrysler treaded water. Its sales fell just 3% in August, compared with the same month a year ago, but it continues to carry higher than desirable inventory levels.

more...

[miketorse]

1. GM and others have...

sold their soul for the last 10 years selling those SUVs. Now they are paying.

[Selatius]

2. The board of directors at GM fucked up big time.

Why didn't they better advertise their smaller vehicles? Why didn't they try to match fuel-efficiency levels that foreign firms were achieving? Why didn't they invest in higher quality 4-door sedans?

[ClintonTyree]

3. Because the knew better than the American public........

what the American public wanted. :eyes: They MADE people want to own those fuel guzzling monster trucks. They created the need with slick advertising and challenges to men's masculinity......YOU NEED THAT BIG, TOUGH TRUCK!
Now, after NOT listening to the American public, they're wallowing in heaps of monster trucks asking themselves, WHY, WHY did this happen to us? :eyes:
They share the same hubris with the Bush Administration. They know better what the people want than the people themselves. Yeah, right! :mad:

[michreject]

5. I'm waiting

Before Christmas, i'm going to get a 3/4 ton, ext cab, 4X4 Chevrolet Silverado pick-up. I have one now but want a new one.

I retired from GM yesterday (8-31).

My goal is to use up all the gas and force the auto makers to develope an alternative energy source.

[Tellurian]

8. order a diesel and convert it to bio-diesel..

you can also look here at Willie Nelson;s site for Willie-Bio.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=EBOF.OB

[michreject]

9. I am giving serious thoughts

to a diesel. GM is coming out with a new one after the first of the year.

[tammywammy]

12. No need to convert a diesel engine to run Bio.

You just pump bio and go. You only have to do any conversion if you plan to run straight used frying grease from the local eatery.

[Tellurian]

16. here is the info for both..

my next car is going to be a diesel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel

I like Willie and just bought stock in his company while it's undeniably cheap.

[NickB79]

58. The alternative is Fischer-Topp coal liquification

Converting coal to oil like the Nazis did in WWII. They are building several plants in the US now that will do this.

They will also completely fuck the climate as even more CO2 is released.

Isn't that a lovely alternative energy source?

[theanarch]

15. and let's not forget all those tax incentives...

...congress passed to boost heavy-vehicle sales when claimed (usually fraudulently) for "business" purposes...

[greccogirl]

34. You know - it's funny, but just about everyone

that I know that drives these big behemoths moan and groan about oil and wars and all that, but of course THEY need theirs - it is only others that do not. I know a lady who drives a huge SUV and both of her KIDS drive Toyota landrunners to school. When I pointed out to her how strange that was when she complains about American "oil interests" she looks right at me and says "oh, but they are safer for kids". I sent her an article showing her that SUV's have a high roll over rate but she ignored it.

[krispos42]

37. What the American public wanted was something exciting

In the '80s the cars were, for the most part, pretty lame. The oil crises in the decade previous forced a drastic and poorly-planned change in domestic prodection of automobiles, which is why Japanese cars came to prominance. Japan had been making very well-made, well-engineered, and efficient small cars for decades, and now all of a sudden they were in demand. At the time, it took the better part of a decade to design, test, certify, and tool-up for production of a new car line, and Detroit did not have a history of making smaller, efficient cars. Detroit was from an era where weight and fuel economy was not an issue, so the 4,000-lb body-on-frame Caprice with the fuel-drinking carburated V-8 was not something to be concerned about. Hell, I got to drive a 1978 Caprice a few times, and GM had hastily installed a "fuel economy" gauge in the dashboard. It would swing over to "low" whenever I stepped on the gas, then drop back to "high" whenever I let up on it. My father figured it was tied to the manifold vacuuum somehow, but that's besides the point. GM's initial response to the crisis was to drop smaller engines in existing cars and stick a fuel economy gauge in the dashboard.

Detroit struggled with small, efficient cars. Remember the Chevette? Aries? LeBaron? Escort? Cavalier? Fiesta? Le Car? Pinto? Vega? It was a market that Detroit, facing a small-car-technology gap, didn't really pursue that hard. And the price of oil fell, so gasoline was cheap again, the introduction of fuel injection and sensor-laden engines increased fuel economy and reduced emissions. Average fleet economy went up as old engines were upgraded and new engines were introduced. Now, a Dodge Charger SRT gets the same milage as my 17-year-old Oldsmobile, with double the horsepower and cleaner exhaust.

The fact is that "coolness" drives sales of just about everything, including cars. It is part of our image. We social creatures spend quite bit of money on status items, like $200 jeans and $4000 plasma TVs. And SUVs were both cool and practical for the suburban family. Plenty of room for the family and groceries, comfortable on long trips, able to tow a trailer or boat, had a better view of traffic, and 4wd for when it's snowing.

There have been SUVs for decades, but it was when Detroit began civilizing these formally work-only trucks that the public began taking notice. With the Explorer and Blazer coming with options like quality stereo systems, cupholders, air conditioning, power windows and locks, and leather seats, people snapped them up pretty fast. They were the reincarnation of the station wagon of yesteryear.

"Practical" has a somewhat bland connotation about it that is very hard to escape. And if you're going to spend big money on a car, you're going to want something that brings you joy when you drive it, because you are going be driving it for several years or longer. People don't spend an extra $3,000 on a Prius because of fuel milage; they do it to either make a statement or to support the concept of hybrid cars. And for many people, the SUV filled the bill. The market for SUVs was so lucrative that both European and Asian car companies jumped into the market. Now, even Audi, Lexus, BMW, and Porche make SUVs, even if they won't call them that.

What is really disturbing about General Motors is that they are pinning a lot of hope on their new lines of full-size pickup trucks. Now, while a good many people and companies need pickups for work, I think the days of most people buying them simply to have a truck are fading.

I'm still waiting for them to listen to my idea about the all-electric car that plugs into either 115-volt or 230-volt socket AND comes with a 7,000 watt generator built in, powered by a 12-horsepower gasoline, E85, diesel or propane engine with automotive-quality economy and emissions. The engine would only kick in when on long trips; otherwise the car would be recharged from household current during off-peak hours. For the average family, the auxillary engines might be used only a few times a year.

[reprobate]

48. Good history lesson, krispos42. And I agree 100% with you on the plug-in.

I think the thing that's holding it up now is battery efficiency, and from what I read there are a bunch of universities, research labs and manufacturers working on that right now.

I believe that your vision is the future: Plug-in electric vehicles, light weight and made of carbon fiber, supplemented by small engine-generators for the longer trips. I've heard it estimated that the average four passenger auto could get up to 200 miles a gallon that way. And if you fuel it with algal biodiesel you're using in effect NO OIL!

Of course, Biodiesel Production from Algae is still in the research phase, and the government of oil interests refuses to fund it, but it does promise to provide a petroleum independent transportation, as well as other power need future.

The problem with current alternative fuels such as ethanol is that it takes as much energy from oil to produce as it produces, so it's effectively a wash. And then you have to mix it with gasoline, so where's the great efficiency gain. Biodiesel from algae could obviate all these problems but it will take private funding or regime change here to bring it to market.

Anyway, good piece you wrote. I appreciate the thought you put into it.

ON edit: I just found a page to sign up for the Biodiesel Bulletin if you're interested.

[krispos42]

50. Oh, there's more problems that have to be overcome

Lithium-ion batteriers are the current hot trend. They are hugely popular in portable electronic gadgets, but to be used on cars the automakers would have to produce some 16 million of the huge battery packs a year. How many tons is that? 8 to ten million tons a year of battery, plus all the smaller ones that we use for cell phones, iPods, BlackBerries, and PalmPilots. That take a LOT of manufacturing capability that has to be built.

They also have to do R&D on 300 VDC electric motors, optimize them for automotive use, and develop a line of them ranging from about 150 to 300 horsepower, about 112 to 224 kilowatts. Then make 16 million a year of them.

On the plus side, the automakers will be able to optimize cargo space by making the batteries in weird shapes and placing them in cramped spots, more so then they can do now with the gas tanks. And it might be more space-efficient to have one smaller motor for each wheel, enhancing anti-slip tracking. It is conceivable that each tire will have a motor in it's hub, freeing up a lot of space for cargo and batteries and the auxillary engine.

The nice thing about my auxillary generator idea is that it does not require a seperate mechanical transmission to power the wheels. The current from the generator goes throught the same circuitry as the 230-volt AC power service, where is it converted to 300-volt DC current, then sent to the wheels. So the only thing attached to the wheels is an eletric motor and a transmission. The transmisison may not even be needed. The Tesla all-electric sports car only has a two-speed. I would like one, though, if nothing else to lower the speed the motors spin and thus prolong bearing life. And the auxillary can run by itself while the car is parked at your aunt's house, or in a motel parking lot, or in the parking garage of a shoppiong mall.

If we have wind-powered ethanol plants, we can make E-85 without having to use natural gas to distill the alchohol, saving the enviroment and reducing out fuel imports. E85 has less energy density than gasoline but a much higher octane rating, so the engine can use a more efficient high-compression cycle, perhaps 11:1 or 12:1, to partially offset the lower energy density.

Of course, if you only consume ten or fifteen gallons a year of fuel, you could also run a biodiesel from recycled deep-fryer oil. Or just stick with gasoline; if everybody only burned 40 gallons a year on average, imported oil would be much less of a problem!

We would need to increase power output of our power grids, though. If we mostly charge at night, we would not need to build new power plants, but we would need to run them at higher capacity at night, burning more coal and natural gas. This is not a huge deal, because a fairly modern power plant produces less pollutants per kilowatt-hour than a car's engine, but it would still produce C02.

Clean-coal technology hold promise because the CO2 is released as an easily-storable liquid. But I still think that we need to make wind-powered ethanol and biodiesel plants throughout the Midwest, and convert corn, beet suger, and cane sugar to ethanol. Sunflower oil, corn oil, and soybean oil can be processed into biodiesel as well. All of this can be done in the windy Midwest. It is difficult to export wind energy directly because the power transmission system can't handle sending megawatts from South Dakota to Houston. But that wind energy can be turned into ethanol and exported across the country from the Midwest by trains and trucks buring biodiesel on existing roadways, interstates, and rail lines.

Eventually we will have nuclear fusion power, which is zero-emmisisons and does not produce nuclear waste. With that much cheap power on tap, we will be able to get hydrogen from water by electrifying it. Then we will be able to have fuel-cell cars which we can fill up as needed. Then we will be totally free from internal-combustion engines and foreign oil, and all those MidEast countries that think we are Satan personified can deal with Communist China. We'll see how much they enjoy that!

[reprobate]

57. I can see you've put a lot of thought into this.

There are a lot of options that will open up in the future, possibly the near future.

The first thing that must be done tho is to free ourselves from a government that is controlled by those who have huge financial interests in the petroleum industry. That may be the most difficult problem of all considering the Republican ownership and control of the very means of casting our votes.

The question in my mind is just what will be the reaction of the public when all the polls predict a landslide Democratic takeover of congress and the voting results show just the opposite?

See you at the barricades

[krispos42]

62. Oh, I can't speculate about that in a public forum :-)

But there will be protests. Perhaps even general strikes.

Whenever we changed presidents, I always watched it on TV, since Clinton took over from Bush41. I always got a little thrill at seeing the peaceful transition of power. It made me proud to be part of a country where we don't have things like coups and fraud.

Maybe I was naive.

But yeah, I've spend a lot of time thinking about it. I have a job that give me time to think while I work.

I actually think that in the near term, while they are tooling up to make the electric/auxillary car idea, they should be using selective supercharging.

I gave the example somewhere in this thread about the Chevy Colbalt LS versus the SS. I noted that they both have the same engine, but the SS has a supercharged version of the 4-banger in the LS. The difference between them is that the SS has 43% more horsepower (200 vs 140) while only losing about 8% of its overall fuel economy.

I think that what the automakers should be doing is, instead of offering bigger engines in the cars as options, they should have a supercharger on the engine and linked up to an electric clutch. The clutch would be controlled by the car's computer module and by a switch in the dashboard.

During normal driving, the supercharger would be turned off, the engine naturally aspirated. This is more than adequate for highway driving, where even at 70 miles an hour the car only needs to make 15 to 25 horsepower to cut the wind resistance. But when you hit the gas heavy, like when passing, merging, climbing an on-ramp or a steep hill, the supercharger would kick in, giving you a 40% horsepower boost. Once the need for the power had passed, the supercharger would turn off.

There would be a switch somewhere in the driver's area labeled "On, Auto, Off", so you could also contol the supercharter manually, like when towing a trailer uphill or navigating a snowy road.

This would simplify the automaker's production lines, because for most cars they could simply offer one engine with a supercharging option for a little bit more. Right now cars usually have at least two and sometimes three engines options. Bigger displacement, more cylinders, more valves, or a combination thereof. This would simplify things a lot. And the supercharger, because it is only on occasionally, would not really add to the engines wear-and-tear.

See? I got tons of ideas. Unlike our fearless president.

[reprobate]

67. Great ideas, and I'd add a CVT to the mix.

You could even make the cvt variable so that when passing or on hills it would temporarilly shift down and accomodate the extra power. Does that make any sense?

I like the idea of a constant velocity transmission as it allows the engine to be run at its most efficient speeds.

[krispos42]

69. Yeah, but the consumer reports on them are mixed

Mostly its a matter of perception. Not having the car shifting throws a lot of people off! The tachometer climbed up to five or six thousand RPM and just stays there as long as the pedal is floored, and it goes against the grain. But those help. The seem to get somewhat better mileage, all other things being equal, than a typical automatic tranny.

They do shift down for passing and such. Well, not "shift" per se, but "change ratio". There is a relationship between throttle position and transmission speed, and when it gets out of whack you have to increase the engine-to-transmission ratio. In normal cars, you do that by shifting. If you suddenly floor the gas, the throttle position sensor notes the sudden demand for power and triggers a downshift or two to multipy the engine's torque and increase acceleration. With a CVT, the tranny self-adjusts the ratio downward.

[jmowreader]

74. Forget DC electric motors

All the forklift manufacturers went to three-phase AC motors for the same reason: longer runtime per charge. To do it they had to install an inverter and a variable-frequency drive so the motors could be powered and controlled, but the runtime extension made the added cost worthwhile.

[WhiteTara]

55. this feels like deja vu

In the early 70's the public demanded fuel efficient cars, Detroit kept making monsters and I haven't purchased an American car since. How quickly those fools forget.

[krispos42]

64. The crisis back then was artificial

OPEC cut production to piss us off. Now what we are seeing is a combination of: a) China and India becoming economic powerhouses, b) jittery investors on oil futures due to Bush's insane policies in the Middle East, c) oil companies discovering, in the light of a total lack of consumer protest over high gas prices, they can charge more, and d) the fact that in most cases (except Iraq, which is largely untapped) the oil-producing nations have moved past the peak production, and the oil will be increasingly difficult to pump.

I've laid out in this thread the three phases I think we should go through to reduce and then largely eliminate fossil fuels for personal transportation. Selective supercharging, battery electric with auxillary generator, and finally hydrogen fuel-cell electric. Hopefully some engineer from the Big Three will read this and get their buns in motion.

Let the Chinese deal with the Middle East. Let Bejing be the new "Great Satan".

[WhiteTara]

66. or maybe they will dust off some of the patents

they bought up and mothballed so they wouldn't have to compete with true efficiency. BTW, it didn't matter to me the reason for the oil crisis in the 70's...our country has always been a gobbler of energy, and I didn't want to participate in the gobbling. At the moment, I don't even own a car.

[krispos42]

68. Oh, god, not the 100 mpg carburator again... :-)

Actually the modern internal-combustion engine is approaching the limits of efficiency. Something like 98% of all of the gasoline injected into the engine cylinder is consumed cleanly, which is something that carburators did not do well at all.

I don't particularly mind using a lot of energy because the alternative is to live like nomadic sheep herders or something like that. However, we are now at (or in some cases, well past) the point at which we have the technology and the ability to make that energy without impacting the environment nearly as much. The first year of the new Republican congress back in 1995 was when they cut federal research dollars for nuclear fusion. Nuclear fusion makes energy from hydrogen, and the ability to control that process would open up a world of power from domestic sources (like a pond, lake, or ocean) with no pollutants or any kind. That, of course, was why they killed it.

But the clean-coal technology is here already. Gasification of coal drastically cuts exhaust impurities and make recovery of carbon dioxide exhaust much easier. The carbon dioxide can be stored in old, empty oil fields instead of being released into the atmosphere, or turned into solids such as limestone.

I've also mentioned earlier in this thread about using wind-powered ethanol plants to distill ethanol with electric heat instead of burning natural gas, especially here in the Midwest. I feel that would be the fastest way to export Midwest wind energy, by cutting into the oil imported into the US. Later on at some point we can upgrade the electrical grid to pump the megawatts to the coasts, especially if we're going to start having all-electric cars at some point.

But back to engine efficiency. The devil is, as always, in the details. With direct fuel injection commonplace and precision monitering and adjustment of both the gasoline/air mix and exhaust, probably the next big step in reducing energy loss in an engine will be replacing the conventional cam-driven intake and exhaust valves with solenoid-driven ones, enabling much more flexable valve timing for maximum efficiency, as well as displacement-on-demand.

What that last is is the engine's computer turning off unused cylinders during periods of low engine use, such as cruising on the highway. Some cars have it already, but simply turning off spark plugs and fuel does not help nearly as much as it could, because unused cylinders are still pumping air and and out and the valves are still being operated by the engine, creating some drag. With solenoid-driven valves, the unused cylinders can be sealed up tight, leaving a bubble of air inside that acts like a spring.

Solenoid-driven valves are already being used in auto racing, and it's only a matter of time before they start showing up in production cars, probably a Mercedes or BMW at first.

We're doing better, but there is a total lack of committment from the federal government to promote such leaps in technology and private industry is unwilling to take the financial rist on it's lonesome. So instead we focus on getting an extra MPG or two from the family car.

[jakefrep]

7. Yeah, whatever....

blame GM and Ford for the poor and irresponsible choices made by consumers. That makes a lot of sense. So when are Toyota and Honda going to get grief for expanding into the SUV and big truck market?

[michreject]

23. Don't ya know

they're Japanese vehicles. They can do no wrong.

I will support my UAW union brothers. GM for me.

[jakefrep]

75. Of course not

I don't understand the cheerleading for the demise of the Big 3 from some corners of DU.

[Protagoras]

54. Should we let drug pushers off the hook too

just because their "consumers" are addicts? The marketing pushs and deliberate business choices that GM and Ford made needed to take into account more than that week's business cycle. But since Corporations get all the profits, have power and freedom of a real person and yet none of the ethical responsibility I guess they get absolved of just about anything they do.

BTW, I give Honda a shitload of grief all the time, done it with calls and emails especially over their ELEMENT which damn well should get better mgp or even have a hybrid option. Totally boneheaded of them to have not done it.

Same for subaru with their Forester and Outback...no hybrid on their cars which are primarily marketed to granolas like my state where they would be readily bought up if only we had the option.

Not everyone's life is well suited for a Prius...but that doesn't mean that the opposite extreme should be the automatic alternative.

[jakefrep]

76. What the hell is that supposed to mean?

It's not like one can choose only between a Prius and an Excursion. GM, Ford, and other manufacturers offer plenty of vehicles that are more responsible than SUV's. Virtually every car maker selling cars in the USA has an SUV in their product line. Why? BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT CUSTOMERS WANTED!!!!

[salin]

32. Guess the head honchos missed the warning of "putting all eggs in one

basket"... for years the sales were good for SUVs and trucks - and overtime put more and more emphasis on producing and selling these veheicles.... focused on current and past trends, rather than working to predict future trends nor on marketing (heavily) other car lines to other consumers. Odd thing, is that this lesson should have been learned more than 20 years ago... which is how the Japanese car makers (during and long after the energy crises of the 70s) made inroads in the US market which by the late 80s/early 80s moved from inroads to market dominance.

[Dover]

4. Here's an incentive: Make environmentally friendly, fuel efficient cars!

Then we might actually get excited about automobiles again. Surely not interested in supporting their and the oil companies' crimes of suppression and ommission of new sustainable technology.
Who wants to be part of a backward trend?

[NJCher]

6. would it be fair to say

that a lot of American SUV-owners are going to take a 15-20,000 loss on these vehicles due to the utter, outright collapse in the market for these vehicles?

If so, that's one financial shellacking to be taking over something that was never anything more than cosmetic appeal.

Not that I feel one bit sorry for any moran that bought one. They are getting just what they deserve.




Cher

[Rosemary2205]

13. I could not disagree more

I bought my SUV in the early 90's because I needed to accomodate a VERY tall husband, have room for many adults, have room for 5 people plus all the suitcases, sports equipment etc, and have room to haul large objects. My SUV has 7 seatbelts and they are all used nearly every time the vehicle leaves my driveway because I participate in a carpool. We routinely pack 9 in and put one seatbelt over 2 kids. I average 20mpg. This means for every 100 miles I average .714 gallons per person.

My sister's Civic averages 32 mpg. Very rarely does her car have more than 2 in it. 90% of the time she is by herself. For every 100 miles she averages at best 1.56 gallons per person.


Do I wish SUV's got better gas mileage? Definately
Do I wish people would only buy them based on need rather than status? Sure
If public transport was available rather than my carpool would I use it? Most definately.

[david_vincent]

14. Good point

An awful lot depends on how you use the vehicle. If you need something to regularly carry a lot of people then the SUV might be a good choice.

On another note, a coworker of mine just bought a Toyota Yaris sedan and she's getting 41 mpg...

[LeftyMom]

18. Please don't take this the wrong way

"We routinely pack 9 in and put one seatbelt over 2 kids."

This is both illegal and extrordinarily dangerous- children sharing seatbelts are at much higher risk for internal injury, head injury and ejection. If you routinely need to accomodate so many children, please look into getting a large van or something that can accomodate them all.

[heliarc]

20. The problem here ...

Is that most SUV's are "SPORTS" Utility Vehicles, and their applications are limited by their smaller cargo space, and exaggerated size to useable space ratio... You should have gotten a VAN if you needed more room. I understand your point though. I need a car that is a Utility vehicle just like a lot of home business owners. I transport equipment and make rental deliveries and my next car is going to have to have a sizeable cargo size. More and more of my work requires me to bring my own equipment... Less and less businesses hire employees and take on equipment costs themselves...

[sendero]

27. I agree..

.. that blanket derision towards SUVs around here is misguided. Some people actually need that space. But, around here in Dallas I have to say that the vast majority of SUVs I see during rush hours have one occupant.

I have an extended cab truck, I drive it when I need to. The rest of the time I drive an econobox, and it suits me just fine getting 30 mpg in town and 37 on the road :)

[greccogirl]

35. I raised two kids in a four cylinder sedan. They both

played sports and my husband is 6'3, and I'm 5'10. I never had any trouble getting the kids and even a friend and all of their stuff either into the trunk or on the luggage rack.

I now drive a Vibe, a crossover vehicle that gets great gas mileage and has a ton of storage space. My friend owns a huge BMW SUV and I can get as much in my car as she can.

[greccogirl]

36. Please be careful -

Putting a seat belt "over" two kids is dangerous.

[KittyWampus]

10. But Just Months Ago SUV's Were Supposedly Flying Off The Lots

[sarcasmo]

11. Kick to the Top. Anyone who buys an SUV is a FOOL.

$3.50 gas by next summer. Buying a full size SUV is like saying screw the environment.

[mtnester]

19. Unless you need it for your farming needs like we do

and a pickup truck, full size, is a necessity.

[heliarc]

21. Yeah...

But you didn't buy a Lexus or a MDX did you? SUV's have a terrible size to useable cargo space ratio... You probably own a Suburban... where the emphasis is on the Utility right? Plus the Suburban isn't really a SUV anyway. Still a gas guzzler, but I imagine there's a diesel option on a suburban right?

[mtnester]

22. We have two Chevy Silverado full size pickup trucks

workhorses.

One for the farm work mostly (mine) and one for our other business, which is garage door installations.

Admitedly, our next trucks will be diesel if possible...at the time we got these, the hybrid P/U from Chevy was only available in California...not Ohio, and the diesel wqas simply too expensive for us. But we pull stumps, haul wood, haul manure, haul dirt, haul shrub...you name it we haul it. We also use them to take product to buyers, and of course to the local farmers market, as well as for our service and installation work.

We just simply had no choice but full size trucks.

[heliarc]

28. I'm with you...

I know how it is. I have to haul audio gear daily around town, but when we're thinking really practically we buy something with the most cargo area... Not these silly SUV's... That's nothing like what you've bought anyway.

[lutefisk]

38. Also, if one pulls a heavy trailer, the only option is suv or pick-up

In that case (a trailer over 3500#), the suv is much more efficient because it can haul 4-8 passengers as well as a very heavy trailer. And an suv also has far more inside carrying capacity than any passenger vehicle other than a minivan- and those reach their light-duty limits rather quickly.

So, if one is pulling a loaded trailer with organic produce from the farm cooperative headed for the local farmers market, one is being much more energy efficient and socially responsible than the many score of polluting scooter riders with baskets that would be required to carry the same produce to the same market.

[michreject]

24. I'll lease then......eom

[TheCowsCameHome]

17. Nice! Great chance to own a Hummer

and let the world see what a real certifiable idiot buys.

[michreject]

25. After I get the GM 4X4 truck

Then i'm getting the H3. Next year it's coming out with a V8. I'm waiting for that one.

[heliarc]

40. You may want a GM truck...

But you're not the majority of people...

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/business/4157505.html

and your insensitivity to the issue is duly noted. Its a shame that you favor militaristic (homicidal) braun over utility. Even the Element has better cargo volume, price, and gas mileage, but you just want to look as brutally insensitive as your choices are. Ok... your choice.

[michreject]

44. Quote....But you're not the majority of people...

I've never followed a crowd. If I want it, i'll get it. You get what you want.

[heliarc]

46. In this case

The majority rules... democracy is similar... and the democratic swell (more educated than before) prefers a more economical, and environmentally friendly car.

You sound quite like a spoiled child to say that you always get what you want, and not what is good for you. I hope that one day you get what is good for you.

[michreject]

47. I'm 53 years old

I retired last Thursday (8-31) from GM. I will get what I want.

In case no one informed you, we are a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[michreject]

65. Who in hell do you think you are?

Repulican my ass. It has been reported. Twerp.:mad:

[krispos42]

51. Alas, a used Hummer. The stopped selling them a couple of months ago

They only sold about 12,000 during a decade of civilian production.

[CatholicEdHead]

26. Not trading in my CRV anytime soon

It is a nice, low end "SUV" though it is mostly just a restyled station wagon. If anything my 01 may be a new 07 with the 3rd generation redesign, which I believe will be assembled in Ohio (or maybe AL).

[spindrifter]

29. Chrysler tore out the expanse of grass at one of their

plants in order to pave the area to park the big ones. They also pay to park in huge lots all around the Detroit area.

[Alacrat]

30. I thought GM was coming out with a new fuel efficient Tahoe

I read that it was part electric, and part gas, with the ability to run on 4 of the 8 cylinders while on the highway cruising. The electric was used in town ie. stop light to stop light. The V8 was used while towing, it has a towing cap. of 9000lbs. This thing sounded pretty good, and very effecient, but I haven't heard anything else about it, has anyone else?

[CatholicEdHead]

31. Must of GM's hybrids have been PR

They had a fleet of all electric vechiles in CA they only leased out and later took back and crushed.

[greccogirl]

33. I'm not sorry for them. It is

their own fault. They could have decided to make more efficient and dependable cars long ago.

[Duke Newcombe]

39. Agree...

One of the delicious ironies of capitalism is that even if you try to fix the game (as the car companies have by "creating the demand", and their too-cosy relationships with big oil), eventually it punishes the inflexible and stupid...in that respect, GM was two for two, and had this coming.

Duke

[krispos42]

52. They have been making small and efficient cars for a while

Check my post by scrolling up. I actually got accolades, which is kinda cool! :-)

The fact is that if SUVs were all electric, nobody would be saying word one about them. In all honestly, the milage most of the medium-sized ones isn't that bad. And the car companies are coming out with SUVs that are built on car frames, not truck frames. Like the Ford Freestyle. It's built on the same frame and drivetrain as the Ford Five Hundred. They can't tow 8,000 pounds, but they are much lighter, stiffer, handle better, and get better mileage than a same-sized truck-framed SUV.

People like the utility of an SUV, and they like the image as well. And that is hugely important in the Land of the Consumer. That's part of why domestic sales are down; a lot of domestic cars just don't look that great, most notably GM. Dodge and Chrysler have eye-catching, cool-looking cars, like the Charger, the Durago, and the 300, and they're tooling up for the new Challenger. Even the Ford Five Hundred and Fusion look, if not great, decent. But the Malibu? The Lucerne? The G6? Eh, bland GM styling. A lot of these cars have nice features and are solidly engineered, but it's the looks that kill them.

A second problem that the domestics have is that there is a certain lack of continuity with many car models. The Civic has been in production for like 30 years. With the Big Three, they make a car for a while, then let is get outdated, and replace it with something else. After a 12-year run the Neon's gone. The Escort and Cavalier have also gone away. Where's the Taurus? The Caprice? The Intrepid? The Accord and Corolla and Camry are still in production and will be for years to come.

It has always been a trade-off between mileage and substance, and you have to give up a lot of substance to get a little milage. Compare the new Chevy Colbalt. In LS trim, it has a 140-hp I-4. In SS trim, it has the same I-4 supercharged to 200 hp. For a 45% power boost, you give up about 10% of your fuel milage.

I drive an '89 Oldsmobile. I get about 23 mpg in mixed driving. An '89 Geo Metro LSi will get twice the milage, but is looses loads of internal space, trunk space, sound insulation, automatic transmission, passing power, passenger capacity, and creature comforts like power windows and air conditioning, to get it. And God help the Metro in a car accident.

Nowadays I can swap my beater for a Dodge Charger SXT with 250 horsepower (about 90 more than I currently have) and get the same fuel economy. In the absence of CAFE increases, the automakers have started making cars that get the same mileage with more horsepower. Not a bad thing after the power-sapped '80s, but not great either.

I would also note that manual-transmision cars get better mileage than automatic-transmission cars, yet I don't see anybody demanding a return to the stick shift. Nearly all cars in Europe do; why not us?

[Seabiscuit]

41. OK, I'm biased.

I wish the vast majority of pickup trucks (which are not used out of necessity) would just disappear.

I wish all SUV's would disappear.

Anyone with need for greater people space and storage space should have a minivan or step van instead - more space and better mileage, generally than SUV's.

This country did just fine without all those pickup trucks and SUV's until GM, hand-in-hand with the oil companies, destroyed the electric car and created the SUV's to drive up short term profits.

And look at all the millions of foolish Americans who bought into their nefarious plot.

[Rosemary2205]

43. When I bought my SUV in the early 90's

it was rated with higher gas mileage than every van on the market and my current mileage rivals many of the new 2007 sedans on the market. Plus the "regular" doors on the back seat have child safety latches where the vans at the time did not have it for the sliding door. Plus the 2nd and 3rd seat in my SUV has 3 seatbelts and comfortably sits 3 adults, where the vans only had 2 seatbelts in the 2nd and 3rd seats.

Also when I bought mine the 3rd seat easily folded flat for cargo where the minivans one had to manually remove the 3rd seat for cargo. Now that minivans have the folding seats and electronic door closers they are a good alternative for many.

Additionally, since I live in farm and mountain country I drive on unpaved streets fairly regularly. Try to get a minivan up a dirt mountain road that doubles as a creek in heavy rains.

Basically what I'm saying is, the claim that no one has any use for an SUV is a myth. Certainly most people than own them don't use them to full potential, and certainly there are wealthier people than can afford 3 or 4 vehicles to tailor to each need. But some of us financially have limited means and choose a single vehicle for all needs combined.

[Seabiscuit]

49. I got this nagging feeling, after posting and then reading this thread

that if anyone decided the take the time to respond to my bias it would be you. :)

Seriously though, if you were in the same living situation you're in now, but before SUV's hit the market, what would you do? Surely you'd manage somehow. Everyone did. SUV's are a very recent arrival in automotive history.

IOW, isn't your choice of an SUV over alternative transportation really about preference, and not necessity?

[Rosemary2205]

53. Before

Before these SUV's we had a 1966 Bronco and a 1964 Scout with MUCH WORSE gas mileage and we had to take both vehicles all the time making it even worse. Before that I didn't drive and didn't own vehicles. Chances are my next vehicles will be truck/jeep based type vehicles too. We need the power and clearance. Now, if they make a 60-80mpg hybrid that can haul 7-9 people plus a camper up an unpaved mountain road then I'll snap it up.

[Seabiscuit]

56. I don't imagine you think of yourself as a typical SUV consumer. n/t

9 people + a camper on rough terrain. Wow.

[Rosemary2205]

59. I don't think in terms of typical or not.

My husband and I each work a job and are foster parents/grandparents in suburbia of 3 or 4 at a time. We own 400 acres out in the middle of nowhere and run a weekend camping retreat twice a month for foster kids. We definately use our SUV to it's fullest potential. We also own a Civic that gets over 40mpg for running errands around suburbia.

I took the bus and the train to work for years and walked the 6 blocks to work from the train station. Now I'm in a power wheelchair and can no longer do that - so I formed a carpool instead.

We installed a solar roof on our home and actually sell electricity back to the power grid more often than not. We also go out of our way to teach the kids who come into contact with us to recycle, reuse, make do, conservation and frugality at every level of life. We avoid fertilizers and pesticides in our garden. We try to use natural and home remedies as much as possible to avoid putting unused medications into the water supply.

I really just wanted to make the point in this thread that judging the character of SUV owners by simply fact that they bought as SUV is a big mistake.

[Seabiscuit]

60. Kudos. And I agree with you:

It's not fair to "judge the character of SUV owners fact that they bought an SUV".

OTOH, the vast, vast majority of SUV owners don't put them to use the way you do. Where I live, most SUVs are driven by pampered rich young-to-middle-aged housewifes who use them to go grocery shopping by themselves. They get out of the store, pack their groceries in the back, step up into the passenger seat, pull out their cell phone, start yacking, take forever to fasten their seat belt and turn on the ignition, then pull out very slowly, and either sit in the middle of the aisle for a minute or two while yacking away, or back into your front bumper while you're waiting for 10-15 minutes to park in their spot. Many of the SUVs owned by such drivers are made by Lexus and Mercedes, BTW. Most are really over-sized. These airheads must think of them as some sort of status symbol.

Those kinds of people should not own SUVs, IMHO.

[michreject]

70. Not new to the market

1936-1940

Introduced way back in 1936, the Chevrolet (and GMC) Suburban was based on a commercial panel truck, but instead of having a huge, windowless cargo area there was a large passenger compartment. Basically truck-based station wagons, the early Suburbans had two doors (not counting the two-piece tailgate) and three rows of seats that seated up to eight passengers. The most common powerplant of the day, an inline six cylinder engine, powered the Suburban. With but 90 horsepower, the 217 cubic-inch six had its work cut out. Minor changes to the facade carried the first-generation Suburban through 1940.

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Features/articleId=46027

[Seabiscuit]

71. Thanks for the info. I had no idea.

Any info about how many units they sold/year? Or the percentage of GMC sales the old Suburbans made up?

And was the Suburban the only SUV type of truck on the market prior to 1990? I don't recall ever seeing one prior to then. Now I see SUV's everywhere all the time.

[michreject]

72. The original full size Blazer

Was made in the 70's. Had a removable top. Ford Bronco as well.



Let's not forget the Woody.(neat site BTW)

http://www.oldwoodies.com/gallery-truckwoodies5.htm

[Seabiscuit]

77. Well, I'd seen those, and to me they're still pickup trucks

(the Chevy Blazer and Ford Bronco). They just slapped a plastic or metal cover over the back area behind the cabin.

And the Woodys I knew were station wagons, not SUVs.

I gather the GMC was the only true SUV prior to 1990.

[michreject]

78. No difference

Those vehicles had seats in the rear. Just like today's models.

Here I go again. BTW. My Trailblazer has stationwagon on the title. Not truck.

http://oldcarandtruckpictures.com/Jeeps/

[Seabiscuit]

79. Interesting link. But I wouldn't come to the same conclusion.

There were huge differences. Any seats in the rear of those old covered trucks looked like afterthoughts - slap-ons which would make today's cheapest SUV's look like luxury vehicles.

And Jeep, well, they made stuff nobody else made (they started with an exclusive contract with the U.S. Army). And the jeeps of the 40's had high tops like most of the vehicles in the 40's, so that one of their station wagons might look more like one of today's SUV's due to the height than one of today's station wagons.

Chevy can call your old Trailblazer a station wagon all they want, but it doesn't resemble one - it looks like a pickup truck with an add-on. I'm sure it has oversized tires like a truck, which station wagons never had.

One of the primary features of SUV's today are their oversized tires and jacked-up suspensions. In many respects, they're just slightly oversized station wagons built on a truck frame with oversized tires jacked up to make the riders sit up so high it creates a rollover problem. This is a common feature available in pickup trucks, but you won't find it on sedans or station wagons, or even minivans (which were modeled after station wagons, whereas SUV's were modeled after pickup trucks).

The examples you've been giving of pre-SUV SUVs are really just modified pickup trucks. Before the 1990's Detroit models which somewhat resembled SUVs didn't enjoy a large market - they were, in a sense, knockoffs from standard pickup trucks. During the past 15 years, the real SUVs came into being and there has during this time been a very sizable market for SUVs per se.

Most minivans, BTW, although physically smaller in outside appearance than many SUVs, have more interior room than such SUV models which appear larger from the outside. And they sit a lot lower on the ground, without the monster tires.

Here are some Woodies I remember from the '50's - basically station wagons with wooden side panels: http://www.oldwoodies.com/gallery-autowoodies5.htm . Yes, there were pickup truck sized versions as well, which visually resemble modern day SUVs, except for the jacked-up oversized tires which they lacked, but they were still knock-offs of pickup trucks.

[michreject]

80. I've offered several examples

of SUV's existing for decades and yet you refuse to accept them. On the Jeep site, it mentions SUV by name and yet you say it's not what the manufacturer say' it is.

No need in proceeding with this line of debate.

[Seabiscuit]

81. Fine.

I'm not disputing what you're saying. I'm merely commenting on it.

Manufacturers can call things what they want.

I have found your examples interesting and enlightening.

I think we can both agree that there was no real SUV market, per se, until GM poured a lot of money into it after destroying the electric car as a way of enjoying relatively short term profits for themselves and their partners-in-interest, the oil companies. It has grown and been with us since (with a sizeable share of the market for the first time in history), although current oil prices seem to be putting a bit of a dent in their sales.

[catmandu57]

42. Not to worry

The price of gasoline is dropping every day. Let's watch and see if the public is dumb enough to fall for this and run out to buy the latest guzzler.
If sales turn around in the next couple of months and people are still buying these things, they'll be singing the blues louder next spring when the oil companies decide they need another gazillion dollars.
I notice a lot of newbs on this thread :hi: welcome to DU.

[IChing]

45. Support this bill

SUV Loopholes Cost Billions

People who use tax loopholes when purchasing SUVs will reduce federal tax revenue by $2.6 billion next year, according to a report from Congressman Ed Markey. The Massachusetts Democrat wants to close the loophole with a bill titled H.R. 5579, the No Special Subsidies for Gas Guzzlers Act.

In his report "Tipping the Scales," Markey points out that SUVs are classified as trucks and therefore don't have to pay the gas guzzler tax that is assessed to vehicles that get less than 22.5 miles per gallon.


"The purchase of the 20.5 mpg Audi incurs a $1300 gas guzzler tax; the purchase of the less efficient 15.8 mpg Jeep is gas-guzzler-tax free. Similarly, a 21.7 mpg Chrysler 300C, a large sedan, pays a gas guzzler tax of $1000, but the 13.9 mpg GMC Yukon Sierra, a very large SUV, pays no tax."

Another loophole allows business owners to writeoff most of the cost of acquiring the heaviest SUVs instead of a car or station wagon.

Markey estimates that if left in place the loophole will reduce tax revenues by nearly $11 billion by 2011.

http://markey.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&ta...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2041260&mesg_id=2041260

[allisonthegreat]

63. no doubt

But no money to manufacturer electric cars...

[MarkTwain]

73. Excellent! I'm planning on trading in my SUV....

... for a newer model this quarter. This means I'll be getting a better deal than expected. I'm in love with these trucks and would not drive anything else.

Ain't America great, or what?