Does today mark the death of the SUV?

[Huzband]

You "glass house" dwellers crack me up.

[Mike]

Well, I'm glad we've been able to quickly reach a consensus on this.

 

Since we seem to be nudging over the line from expressing our opinions to slapping one another, I'd suggest that this thread may be even less long-lived than SUVs. Please be kind to one another.

 

 

[mickey05]

I agree. I love everyone. It was just all of our opinions and I am respectful of others opinions too. Hopefully the plants can be saved and retooled to produce fuel efficient cars then every one will have their jobs and the happy circle of life can continue.

[Couchrocket]

 

GAWD I hope so. If ever there is a symbol for whats wrong with America, it's the ego-maniacal SUV. Excess purely for the purpose of flaunting excessiveness.

 

Oops, I swore to myself I wasn't going to get into these "Other Topics" controversial threads again!

 

 

Talk about a gross generalization. What's really wrong with America is people who think they know exactly the motives and needs "of the masses," and would like to dictate their behavior.

 

[Marek]

GAWD I hope so. If ever there is a symbol for whats wrong with America, it's the ego-maniacal SUV. Excess purely for the purpose of flaunting excessiveness.

 

Oops, I swore to myself I wasn't going to get into these "Other Topics" controversial threads again!

 

 

Talk about a gross generalization. What's really wrong with America is people who think they know exactly the motives and needs "of the masses," and would like to dictate their behavior.

 

Right on Scott - +100

[russell_bynum]

GAWD I hope so. If ever there is a symbol for whats wrong with America, it's the ego-maniacal SUV. Excess purely for the purpose of flaunting excessiveness.

 

Oops, I swore to myself I wasn't going to get into these "Other Topics" controversial threads again!

 

 

Talk about a gross generalization. What's really wrong with America is people who think they know exactly the motives and needs "of the masses," and would like to dictate their behavior.

 

+1

 

I also think it's great when people try to explain what's wrong with 'the market' in terms of a single cause. i.e. It's all "The Unions". Or "The Management". Or "The dumb consumer". Like a complicated system such as this can be explained in sound byte-friendly 3 word sentences.

 

And I'll remind Ken that he rides the motorcycle equivalent of an H2 with dubs.

[velomoto]

... For myself, perhaps a few others, if you won't tell us who you are, where you are, then perhaps your posts will be less believable.

To each their own. I prefer to believe posts based upon the merits of what that person has had to say. Some may leave their profiles "sparse" to prevent people from prejudging them, but perhaps this act simply changes the light in how they are being judge?

[David]

There's usually a direct connection between trolling and anonymity. You don't have to be virtually anonymous to troll, but it often points to the intent to do so.

[tallman]

... For myself, perhaps a few others, if you won't tell us who you are, where you are, then perhaps your posts will be less believable.

To each their own. I prefer to believe posts based upon the merits of what that person has had to say. Some may leave their profiles "sparse" to prevent people from prejudging them, but perhaps this act simply changes the light in how they are being judge?

 

Quite the contrary.

I don't look at profiles until I read a post.

Sometimes it adds to the credibility.

Sometimes it tells me its my neighbor.

Sometimes it tells me we live close enough to set up a ride and meet.

Sometimes it tells me nothing.

And, I don't judge in that manner.

But, if Pilgrim chimes in about borders/immigration.

I read it twice.

I may not always agree, but I know his ideology is based on decades of specific experience in the area.

If Russell speaks computerese, well, that's just Russell.

But, I know he knows his stuff.

If David talks, E. F. Hutton, listens.

Steve put the Right Spin on the world, and that's Ok as he is consistent and we often, but not always, agree.

I could go on.

If Daniel, posts,

well, guess you had to be there.

 

[lawnchairboy]

thanks, my sentiments as well...

 

chris

[StuGotz]

See....

 

We can ALL get through a thread without a moderator getting upset. Great opinions all, even if we disagree.

 

And Tallman:

 

"Don't pay attention to the man behind the curtain"...

 

MB>

[DiggerJim]

Certainly unions have had their faults, but IMO they are unfairly being used as a scape goat every time the auto industry has trouble. I'd certainly consider an American product again, but frankly the vehicles they've designed from, motorcycles to mini-vans, simply don't meet my needs as well as the products from their competitors. I would place Detroit's problems squarely on the shoulders of the management and designers who made the decisions on what to produce - not the people who built the product.

I don't think I said it was solely the unions' fault, they're just part of the picture (and by the way, I have been although am not currently, a member of the AFL-CIO Local 919). However, I will disagree that it's solely the managers of Detroit automakers fault. They built what people bought. If we stopped buying bigger thirsty engines they'd stop building them (as they are beginning to do now).

 

It seems you aren't really convinced it's the managers' fault either as you said this in a later post:

The basic problem is that Americans have opted for inefficient vehicles - there were (and still are) other options. Detroit has been designing, building and marketing SUV's and PU's because they have (had?) far greater profit margins.

Of course maybe I just don't get it and it really is managment & politicians and everyone else's fault (and yes I am a manager and part of everyone else although not a politician).

[SageRider]

FWIW, David hit it right on the head with:

 

Section 179 deductability manipulated the market (in the wrong direction), too. Which is exactly why I bought my truck, effectively getting a 40%+ discount on the thing. Just because it weighed more than x amount.

 

It made more sense in my case to buy an F250 Diesel than to buy a smaller pickup due to the government discount. (And even at $5.00 diesel, there is a long way to go to eliminate the difference.)

[motoguy128]

I don't entirely blame the consumers who turned to SUVs over the years for contributing to our high consumption of fuel; much of the blame lies with the politicians who wanted to be able to tout the fact that they had solved the fuel crisis.

 

Most of it was an image thing IMO. During the SUV boom, there was always the option of a less expensive, better handling, vehicle with mor ecargo room. The only downside was it's appearance (subjective), social status, and limit of 2000-3500lb towing capacity. These vehicles are called minivans.

 

Minivans have always been a rational option all the same functionality that MOST consumers needed. Rarely does anyone NEED 4WD, 8" of ground clearance or towing capacity over 3500lbs. They just liked the sieze, weight and muscular feel of the larger vehciles.

 

Personally, every SUV I've ever driven was a big fat pig. It handled like a pig, accelerated OK, but I could hear a huge sucking sound, braking was scary and I was always worried about hitting crap because it barely fit on the road and worse in a parking lot.... good riddence!!!

[Huzband]

They just liked the sieze, weight and muscular feel of the larger vehciles.

 

And just what exactly is wrong with that? (Besides the spellign )

[Marek]

I don't entirely blame the consumers who turned to SUVs over the years for contributing to our high consumption of fuel; much of the blame lies with the politicians who wanted to be able to tout the fact that they had solved the fuel crisis.

 

Most of it was an image thing IMO. During the SUV boom, there was always the option of a less expensive, better handling, vehicle with more ecargo room. The only downside was it's appearance (subjective), social status, and limit of 2000-3500lb towing capacity. These vehicles are called minivans.

 

Minivans have always been a rational option all the same functionality that MOST consumers needed. Rarely does anyone NEED 4WD, 8" of ground clearance or towing capacity over 3500lbs. They just liked the sieze, weight and muscular feel of the larger vehciles.

 

Personally, every SUV I've ever driven was a big fat pig. It handled like a pig, accelerated OK, but I could hear a huge sucking sound, braking was scary and I was always worried about hitting crap because it barely fit on the road and worse in a parking lot.... good riddence!!!

 

For one I don't need any of the "politically correct" crowd or the government here to tell me what I should drive or what I shouldn't. I make those choices based on my needs and liking - so far I've owned minivans, SUV's, Porsche's Corvette's BMW's Toyota's Mercedes and others. I don't care what you like and I have no need to impress you or anyone else. SO if a 3500lbs towing capacity is not for you - stay out of the fast lane because I'm coming in my SUV with my camper and bikes in tow.

When I came over here over 25 years ago it was still more less a free country, most of the PC crowd has managed to destroy that.

And with the upcoming elections I may have to move again just not sure if there is anyplace left to go.

 

Mark

 

[velomoto]

... SO if a 3500lbs towing capacity is not for you - stay out of the fast lane because I'm coming in my SUV with my camper and bikes in tow.

When I came over here over 25 years ago it was still more less a free country, most of the PC crowd has managed to destroy that.

And with the upcoming elections I may have to move again just not sure if there is anyplace left to go.

 

Mark

FWIW, I don't think we'll find your SUV with the camper and bikes in our fast lanes out here at 10,000++ ft. Just a hunch! Oh, and good luck in your search for nirvana - I for one always seem to be able to find it when I'm on two wheels!

[velomoto]

[it seems you aren't really convinced it's the managers' fault either as you said this in a later post:

The basic problem is that Americans have opted for inefficient vehicles - there were (and still are) other options. Detroit has been designing, building and marketing SUV's and PU's because they have (had?) far greater profit margins.

Of course maybe I just don't get it and it really is managment & politicians and everyone else's fault (and yes I am a manager and part of everyone else although not a politician).

You're right, there is not just one problem and not just one reason. Ford could have easily cut 300 to 500 pounds our of my Expedition and made this SUV a much more efficient and better performing vehicle. This however would've cut into the profit on that vehicle - estimated around $9K at the time I purchased it.

 

I also could have used better wording in the one post above, "executives" would probably have been more accurate than "managers" but since exec's are managers I didn't go back to edit... besides I think you got my point.

 

In any case I seriously doubt the SUV will vanish. The largest most inefficient incarnations will certainly die off but new models will spring up or the small and mid sized SUV's will morph into more fuel efficient models. Perhaps the station wagon will find a resurgence in popularity - or maybe it already has in the form of the Toyota Highlander and Lexus RX350?

[Matts_12GS]

They just liked the sieze, weight and muscular feel of the larger vehciles.

 

And just what exactly is wrong with that? (Besides the spellign )

 

Talking about glass houses.... LOL,I love you brother Dan.

I bet my truck gets better mileage on cheaper gas than yours does!

[Huzband]

They just liked the sieze, weight and muscular feel of the larger vehciles.

 

And just what exactly is wrong with that? (Besides the spellign )

 

Talking about glass houses.... LOL,I love you brother Dan.

I bet my truck gets better mileage on cheaper gas than yours does!

 

Oh yeah?!? Just what did you get on the trip to BRR with it loaded & pulling a trailer?

 

Who asked you anyway?

[Ken H.]

When I came over here over 25 years ago it was still more less a free country, most of the PC crowd has managed to destroy that. I may have to move again just not sure if there is anyplace left to go.

You're right. There are few places left where a person can go and thumb their nose at the rest of the world.

 

Thankfully.

[soboy]

I say good riddance to every one of these gas guzzling, ego-stroking monstrosities (specifically referring to 95% of all SUVs that have been used for personal transportation when a smaller, lighter, more fuel efficient vehicle would suffice, not the 5% of SUVs that are legitimately used for towing, farm or commercial purposes). I am looking forward to a return to sanity in the U.S. personal transportation fleet.

 

When I was working for Ford, they brought out the first generation Explorer. This was explained to us as the way around CAFE standards. Americans want big vehicles and CAFE killed the full size station wagon. So the Explorer was marketed as the family car of the 1990's, exempt from passenger car CAFE standards.

 

Of course, the better and more logical choice for a CAFE-exempt family car was the minivan, which was lighter, quicker, more fuel efficient, less costly, polluted less, was actively and passively safer, handled and braked better and had more interior room than a comparable SUV. But that made too much sense and wasn't "cool". As a student of the automobile business, I never understood how a tall overweight pig of a station wagon on a truck based chassis suddenly became "cool". Truck based SUVs are overweight, inefficient, lousy handling vehicles that are unsafe when it comes to accident avoidance. Their roll-over rates are very high compared to automobiles.

[Marek]

You're right. There are few places left where a person can go and thumb their nose at the rest of the world.

 

 

Yes a simple thing live and let live.

[Matts_12GS]

Oh yeah?!? Just what did you get on the trip to BRR with it loaded & pulling a trailer?

 

Who asked you anyway?

 

About 16 at 80.

 

But, I can accept that since I get an easy 19-20 around town

smarty pants..

[motoguy128]

As a student of the automobile business, I never understood how a tall overweight pig of a station wagon on a truck based chassis suddenly became "cool".

 

I remember reading and artical by a phycologist that tried ot explain the illogical popularity of the SUV, especialyl among women. it came down mostly to height and the sensation of superiority. To sum it up, in the animal kingdom, height as well as size/mass gives you more power and immunity. They felt that instinctively a shorter person, mainly women felt more empowered by sitting up high. It might also help compensate for a sense of inferiority or general insecurity.

 

No no offense to those that purcahse these vehicles for practical means. I'm only refering ot the 95% that are convinced they NEED them, when in fact they don't... as witnessed by the plumeting market for them, and $.25 on the dollar trade-in values now seen.

 

Although my wife is only 5'3", she prefers the sens of control she has in driving a more sporty mid sized sedan. Our Altima is big enough to give you enough space and sense of security, but is more responsive and nimble that for example a Murano. We were actually considering a 3 row crossover, but are now glad we didn't get one. I'll wait 4 or 5 years until a viable hybrid version or a 7 or 8 passenger vehciles comes out.. either a minivan or crossover.

[TyTass]

I'm sure that study may well be true for some people but no matter what, one thing's for certain ... it's much easier to dismiss a person's viewpoint/opinion if we can ascribe bad motives to it.

 

Perhaps some people (short or otherwise) prefer any taller vehicle for the "superior" field of view. Seeing things earlier provides far more response time than last-minute notification in a better handling vehicle. Perhaps others, though the facts prove otherwise, feel safer in a larger vehicle. Wouldn't be the first time someone was just plain wrong.

[TyTass]

It never ceases to amaze me the number of threads we spend ranting about "those other" gas guzzlers when almost certainly EVERYONE of us on this board receives pure pleasure by burning that particular fossil fuel.

 

Please do not attempt to justify your burning it by saying, "but I get 50 mph." Many people in those huge vehicles don't put 10K miles/year on their vehicles while we brag about putting 100K miles on our bikes for pleasure. Do the math ... who burns more.

 

Everytime we go for a ride up in the twisties, to a BMWST rally, or go cross country or up into Canada, we do so for fun only. Therfore, the very last people who should be talking about "others" snubbing their noses at the rest of the world is any of us.

 

The point is we prefer this brand of pleasure to our claimed convictions vis-a-vis concern for fuel economy.

[SageRider]

It never ceases to amaze me...

Amen!

[Ken H.]

I remember reading and artical by a phycologist that tried ot explain the illogical popularity of the SUV, especialyl among women. it came down mostly to height and the sensation of superiority. To sum it up, in the animal kingdom, height as well as size/mass gives you more power and immunity. They felt that instinctively a shorter person, mainly women felt more empowered by sitting up high. It might also help compensate for a sense of inferiority or general insecurity.

If you could come up with that reference I would love to read it, because it sounds like just the point I've been making all along about the things. I predict in 50 years retrospect the creation of SUV will be among the top 3 or 4 most damaging things to modern mankind it had ever created. Consumption of resources, human & natural, increased pollution, increased deaths, acceleration of the decline of the petroleum based society, increased crime, and sociopathic problems, and more; have all been contributed to, to some extent, by the creation of, and lust for, the "Power-trip SUV." IMHO of course.

[Ken H.]

It never ceases to amaze me the number of threads we spend ranting about "those other" gas guzzlers when almost certainly EVERYONE of us on this board receives pure pleasure by burning that particular fossil fuel.

 

Please do not attempt to justify your burning it by saying, "but I get 50 mph." Many people in those huge vehicles don't put 10K miles/year on their vehicles while we brag about putting 100K miles on our bikes for pleasure. Do the math ... who burns more.

 

Everytime we go for a ride up in the twisties, to a BMWST rally, or go cross country or up into Canada, we do so for fun only. Therfore, the very last people who should be talking about "others" snubbing their noses at the rest of the world is any of us.

 

The point is we prefer this brand of pleasure to our claimed convictions vis-a-vis concern for fuel economy.

It never ceases to amaze me how some people try to deflect criticism/comments about one subject (in this case SUVs), by creating criticism/comments about another subject.

 

My "snub their noses" comment was regarding a specific post that was lamenting the demise of the (paraphrasing) "I should be able to do what ever I want" America. Nobody, at any time, anywhere, can do whatever they want. We ALL effect (or is it "affect"?) other people, locally and globally. A fact that seems to be lost on more and more people. There's a big difference between what we do impacting others and being conscious of it, and simple say screw everyone else I'm going to do what I want.

 

[motoguy128]

It never ceases to amaze me the number of threads we spend ranting about "those other" gas guzzlers when almost certainly EVERYONE of us on this board receives pure pleasure by burning that particular fossil fuel.

 

Please do not attempt to justify your burning it by saying, "but I get 50 mph." Many people in those huge vehicles don't put 10K miles/year on their vehicles while we brag about putting 100K miles on our bikes for pleasure. Do the math ... who burns more.

 

Everytime we go for a ride up in the twisties, to a BMWST rally, or go cross country or up into Canada, we do so for fun only. Therfore, the very last people who should be talking about "others" snubbing their noses at the rest of the world is any of us.

 

The point is we prefer this brand of pleasure to our claimed convictions vis-a-vis concern for fuel economy.

 

 

I think we're only discussing primary transprotation here.

 

If we want to examine the impact of various recreational activities we have to clearly seperate the two.

 

80-90% of my riding are vacations or local/regional trips... where I would have used another vehicle anyway. I'm a special case however, and don't ride a lot of miles just to ride... althouhg I have in the past. To be fair, you need to compare purly the miles of recreational motorcycle use to other recreational activities and vacation like RV/trailer camping, boating, air travel vacations, hunting, fishing, off roading, 4 wheelers/ATV's.... etc.

 

Even if you use that argument.... here's the real math.

 

6000 extra miles on the BMW... 6000miles @ 48mpg = 125 gallons 12,000 miles per year difference in fuel between a 20mpg minivan and a 14mpg SUV is 257 gallons. About twice the fuel.

 

But again, I'd argue that most of those 6000 recreational miles would have been spent on a boat, jet ski, RV, flying or just driving. So you're really looking at an even greater difference.

 

It ceases to amaze ME people that will make a arguement using supposedly objective data but not actually show any math to back it up. (Sorry...not flaming, just being a smart a**.)

 

I showed you my math...now show me yours.

[motoguy128]

We ALL effect (or is it "affect"?) other people, locally and globally. A fact that seems to be lost on more and more people. There's a big difference between what we do impacting others and being conscious of it, and simple say screw everyone else I'm going to do what I want.

 

So true. If a short person wants an SUV to see over other cars, the opposite effect (kinda like Newton's Law) is that now ONLY other tall vehicles can see around them. If we all drive smaller vehicles and simply adjust our seat to where our eyes are within 3-4 inches of the same height, we're all on level playing field. Most cars are relatively narrow and have rounded cors sectional profiles from the front/rear, making them easy to see around. Corssovers don't help this issues either, expecially since they have very dark tinted windows.

 

Similarly, by purchasing a heavier vehcile to survive and accident, you now put the driver of the other car at risk. If both drive a well designed midsized vehciles or at least one with crush zones and stiffness inversely porportional to the vechile's mass, then we can all be safe and co-exist fairly.

 

....and increased fuel consumption increases demand, meaning we ALL pay more for fuel.

[Ken H.]

I think we're only discussing primary transprotation here.

I think we're discussing SUVs. The title of the thread is, "Does today mark the death of the SUV?"

 

I've never attempted to argue a bike better (or worse )than an SUV. I know that some of the bikes we ride and talk about here, mine included, have some detriments too.

 

My original post was, "If ever there is a symbol for whats wrong with America, it's the ego-maniacal SUV." (New bold emphasis mine.) And I stand by that statement. The Hummer, being the ultimate of the breed, is the poster child for the excessive consumption-ism of what is wrong with America, IMHO.

[SageRider]

..."If ever there is a symbol for whats wrong with America, it's the ego-maniacal SUV."...

"If ever there is a symbol for whats wrong with America, It's the ego-maniacal BMW motorcycle"

 

Seems the same argument could be made for wretched excess when a 250cc or less motorcycle / moped could do as well...

[Twisties]

The Hummer, being the ultimate of the breed

 

 

Wikipedia - International XT Line

 

 

[Matts_12GS]

It never ceases to amaze me how many people never cease to be amazed at this place...

 

Sheesh.

 

I want to custom order leather seats in my new SUV made from the hides of the first 10 caribou impacted by drilling at ANWR.

I figure they'll be almost as comfortable as my manatee skin boots and my bald eagle down pillows...

 

Please resume your overthinking of the woes of the western world

 

I want to believe...

[TyTass]

Oh Geez Motoman128 ... let me spell it out, then.

 

First off, in reading this thread it is not overt that the discussion was SOLELY about primary transportation vehicles, though I acknowledge that was indeed discussed. The overt issue for the majority of this topic is that there is a drop in the sales of SUVs ostensibly due to the poor fuel efficiency and rising gas prices. And I agree that those that own an SUV for purely cosmetic/style reasons surely won't continue to buy them.

 

But on the other hand, until someone can make a powerful and efficient vehicle that one can use to serve many purposes (trailering, off-road, dry storage, multiple passengers, etc.), there will still be some demand for them. Some of those poeple have expressed that opinion on this board. You acknowledged that. Some went further to say they enjoy burning a lot of gas in their SUVs trailering to BMWST events and such [though I think it obvious they were working to excite you and KenH, and they did!].

 

What I was objecting to was what seems to me as a tangent, at best: the stereotyping of the SUV owners (sorry, that should read ego-maniacal SUV owners). Making generalizations about the motives of others is still a generalization (PhD's of some authors notwithstanding) ... some people will fit the stereotype and some won't.

 

I didn't think that the "why" a person buys an SUV was the point of the discussion, but you certainly wanted to take it that way. And since you want to question the "why" aspect of a person's fuel expenditure, I accused us all on BMWST of wasting gas. That is, whether you agree or not, a consistent parallel and an appropriate response to your continuously bringing up the why issue.

 

Your numbers only serve to prove my point. You burn gas for fun and don't seem to acknowledge that it is optional burning of fuel. In fact, you present it as a given that your recreation time will be spent on powered vehicles. You're happy with the numbers you produce. Why? Do you know that all of America burns more than you do? Couldn't you find activities that burn less fuel?

 

Your viewpoint doesn't appear to be consistent with thinking it wrong for someone else to expend fuel in an SUV while thinking it a given that it's A-OK for you to expend fuel in other recreational vehicles. That's an apple seed to orange seed argument. So, it appears to me that you are on the same side of things in practice as those you are arguing vehemently against. If that isn't so, please tell me what is your base principle here. Freedom do do as you like? Desire to expend less fuel. Or desire to have others live as you do? I honestly can't tell.

 

BTW: What's wrong with the economy driving these issues. Does it have to be a moral issue in the first place?

[Huzband]

It never ceases to amaze me how many people never cease to be amazed at this place...

 

Sheesh.

 

I want to custom order leather seats in my new SUV made from the hides of the first 10 caribou impacted by drilling at ANWR.

I figure they'll be almost as comfortable as my manatee skin boots and my bald eagle down pillows...

 

Please resume your overthinking of the woes of the western world

 

I want to believe...

 

I'll see your caribou seats & manatee boots, & raise you my baby seal lined gloves.

[TyTass]

I'll see your caribou seats & manatee boots, & raise you my baby seal lined gloves.

Pah! Danny ... I'll see your baby seal lined gloves and raise you my Black Rhino Horn Toilet Paper Dispenser Roller. Anyone call?

[Francois_Dumas]

African Elephant's Tooth Toothpicks?

[Fugu]

I want to custom order leather seats in my new SUV made from the hides of the first 10 caribou impacted by drilling at ANWR.

 

 

 

 

 

[motoguy128]

Your viewpoint doesn't appear to be consistent with thinking it wrong for someone else to expend fuel in an SUV while thinking it a given that it's A-OK for you to expend fuel in other recreational vehicles. That's an apple seed to orange seed argument. So, it appears to me that you are on the same side of things in practice as those you are arguing vehemently against. If that isn't so, please tell me what is your base principle here. Freedom do do as you like? Desire to expend less fuel. Or desire to have others live as you do? I honestly can't tell.

 

BTW: What's wrong with the economy driving these issues. Does it have to be a moral issue in the first place?

 

The arguemnt focused on the scale of while excess consumption is occuring... not that none should exist... and that even a large amout of recreational riding (6000mi/year) is still smaller in scale than the regular daily use of an SUV.

 

Now we're getting into the arguemnt of what type or how much recreation is acceptable and what is not. My point is that using a motorcycle for recreation is not "excessive" when compared to using an SUV as a daily ride... which is the point you appeared to be making.

 

In my personal case, I figure that I only ride 500-1000 miles of true "recreation" while the other 5000 miles are those that I would have traveled in a car anyway to that destination. I don't consider the extra 20 gallons of fuel I use riding for pleasure to be excessive.

 

I'm not saying that we need to drive the most fuel effecient vehicle possible, only that the intention of the original post, the days of EXTREME excess are over.

[SageRider]

...My point is that using a motorcycle for recreation is not "excessive" when compared to using an SUV as a daily ride...

Why not. Recreational use is pure squandering of resources. No matter how efficient, the resource is being spent for a non-essential purpose.

[Quinn]

I wonder if mini-vans will make a comeback. They were a fuel efficient people and gear mover but were displaced by SUVs. My brother-in-law ended up with a Honda Odessy that was the perfect vehicle for a family with two small children. The side doors slid open at the touch of a button, the third row seats folded flat--everything was set up for his life-stage. Once the kids got slightly older, however, he (and his wife) went back to SUVs for no other reason than the "cool factor." I'm sure that their two SUVs are 2wd, so they're really just show SUVs.

[TyTass]

That's a good point. Maybe the mini-van isn't over.

 

I would go to any gear mover that could pull what I need it to pull. Of course, that said, I would of course want 4x4 to get up some of the mountains I like to visit.

[BULLman]

Apparently so...

 

Mini-Van Sales Slow

[Matts_12GS]

African Elephant's Tooth Toothpicks?

I have an elephant hide condor lined riding jacket...

[velomoto]

That's a good point. Maybe the mini-van isn't over.

My crystal ball sez the "soccer mom" image is too much for people to take - it'll be a long time before mini vans could regain large volume. I'd bet on station wagons or the cross over SUV's to dominate.

[DiggerJim]

I want to custom order leather seats in my new SUV made from the hides of the first 10 caribou impacted by drilling at ANWR.

LMAO! So true. We whined about not getting the Saudis to bump production by a million barrels to drop our prices even though had they opened ANWR 5 yrs ago we'd be pumping 1M/barrels a day out of it. We're worried about the impact of drilling confined to 3000 acres would have on wildlife and complain that the Saudis won't pump more so we can pay less ("we don't want to make a mess of our environment by pumping oil but we'd be ever so grateful if you'd muck up that dusty little part of the planet you live in...and please pump lots more so we can drive to our bike trails and gyms to get some exercise").

 

Of course the 3,000 acres is a bit of a misnomer 'cause it only counts the actual footprint of the equipment, pipeline stanchions, etc and it's actually spread over the northernmost 8% of ANWR. We owe it to the caribou to keep more than 92% of it unspoiled even if it means making a mess of the Saudi desert or helps keep oil prices up there.

 

Sometimes our intellectual dissonance is ear-splitting!

[VinnyR11]

...My point is that using a motorcycle for recreation is not "excessive" when compared to using an SUV as a daily ride...

Why not. Recreational use is pure squandering of resources. No matter how efficient, the resource is being spent for a non-essential purpose.

 

I agree with Sage (or is that Mr. Rider?). You can argue this until the spotted owls come home. Why don't you hike (or substitute whatever)..."like I do" instead of ride a bike? I happen to do both. I don't like SUV's but I can see where some people may need their towing capacity or whatever. In their case it's probably environmentally unfriendly to own an additionalvehicle when you add in all the enviro costs of building that vehicle.

 

I belong, contribute, and volunteer to numerous hiking organizations who work very hard on environmental issues. On the other hand, I was a track instructor for the Metro and Northeast Porsche clubs for years, and I was blasting away on racetracks many weekends. Someone peeking in on those tracks would, perhaps rightfully, say I'm destroying the world. I can't make sense of it, but I think it's possible that we can balance both aspects of our lives.