PDA

View Full Version : 2007 Chevy Tahoe unveiled!


quagmire
Sep 20, 2005, 02:47 PM
Ok, before I begin; yes this is a gas guzzling SUV. It is just a sweet design. The 4800 gets 290 HP, the 5300 iron and aluminum block gets 320 HP, the 6.0 iron block gets 350 HP, the aluminum block 6.0 gets 355 HP, and the 6.2 gets 400 HP. The 6.2 engine will gain GM's new 6 speed auto.

http://www.gm-trucks.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=34

http://gm-trucks.com/home/content/view/235/1/1/0/

jimsowden
Sep 20, 2005, 03:02 PM
Looks exactly like every other chevy truck/suv.

wow.

I guess you can haul some lumber in it, but I'd rather a new M5.

edesignuk
Sep 20, 2005, 03:08 PM
WOW! That truly is....















...horrific!!! :eek: :rolleyes:

quagmire
Sep 20, 2005, 03:08 PM
The design is evolutionary then revolutionary. The only thing revolutionary is the interior.

new

http://www.gm-trucks.com/gallery/albums/2007TahoePreview/normal_t8.jpg

old

http://www.gmcanada.com/images/vehicles/2005/chevytrucks/tahoe/chtr_taho_opti_main.jpg

jimsowden
Sep 20, 2005, 03:24 PM
just a bunch of curves. Typical american design.
"Hey guys, lets make everything rounded."
The line must be embraced!
http://www.bmwusa.com/NR/rdonlyres/10936A61-6CE1-4C68-8929-E7E2F18CCEB3/0/0651_05.JPG
Now that's an interior.

rockthecasbah
Sep 20, 2005, 03:27 PM
garbage. what's so special about ANYTHING gm's made lately though? :confused:

quagmire
Sep 20, 2005, 03:41 PM
garbage. what's so special about ANYTHING gm's made lately though? :confused:

Pontiac Solstice/ Saturn Sky, Corvette with the LS2 and LS7 engine, the HHR, the new Impala with the return of the small block V8, and much more. The Z06 can go 0-60 in 3.7 seconds. In 2007, the 2 mode hybrid. 2008 GTO. 2007-2010 Camaro rumor, etc.

evilernie
Sep 20, 2005, 03:53 PM
Pontiac Solstice/ Saturn Sky, Corvette with the LS2 and LS7 engine, the HHR, the new Impala with the return of the small block V8, and much more. The Z06 can go 0-60 in 3.7 seconds. In 2007, the 2 mode hybrid. 2008 GTO. 2007-2010 Camaro, etc.

Bah. I have been a lifelong GM and Mopar man but they both have let me down. GTO? Please. Charger? Not quite. They should both learn something from what Ford did with the Mustang.

That's why I just crossed over and bought a 2006 Mustang GT on Saturday. :cool:

jiv3turkey748
Sep 20, 2005, 03:56 PM
garbage. what's so special about ANYTHING gm's made lately though? :confused:

nothing gm is really been going down the toilet along with every other american car manufacturer

jiv3turkey748
Sep 20, 2005, 03:57 PM
Bah. I have been a lifelong GM and Mopar man but they both have let me down. GTO? Please. Charger? Not quite. They should both learn something from what Ford did with the Mustang.

That's why I just crossed over and bought a 2006 Mustang GT on Saturday. :cool:

i love the new mustang

the gto is just ugly.... fast, but ugly
i like the charger, but why the heck is it a four door???

quagmire
Sep 20, 2005, 04:28 PM
Notice how I said 2008! The GTO will be redesigned then. The '06 model year is the last of the current GTO. '08-'09 should when the new GTO comes out with much more appropriate looks. Also GTO came out in 2004. The new Mustang 2005. Difference isn't there? :p

ham_man
Sep 20, 2005, 04:51 PM
That looks like a piece of **** compared to the old Tahoe. Chevy seems to be making some ugly cars lately... :rolleyes:

Mr. Anderson
Sep 20, 2005, 04:57 PM
That looks like a piece of **** compared to the old Tahoe. Chevy seems to be making some ugly cars lately... :rolleyes:

that seems to be the case - the exterior looks more like a modded Envoy (which is even uglier) :D

Bleh - and when you have to pay $100 to fill up the tank to go across town, that's what you want to be driving :rolleyes:

D

cheekyspanky
Sep 20, 2005, 05:27 PM
It looks so generic and mundane.

What more can I say..! :rolleyes:

Abstract
Sep 20, 2005, 05:38 PM
If you showed me an exterior photo from a Tahoe from 4 years ago and said the "2007 Chevy Tahoe unveiled", I doubt I'd notice anything wrong.

They all look the same.

"Blue Steel. Magnum. It's all the same face!"

joepunk
Sep 20, 2005, 05:50 PM
What a fracking monster of bleh.

I don't think that I could spot the differences between any of the models at all. Heck, I rarely ever even notice them on the road. I just turn a blind eye when they come in my line of sight.

And yes, if I am going to be spending $100 on gas just to go across town, I would want to drive something with a lot more flare and excitement.

dvdh
Sep 20, 2005, 05:59 PM
Great . . . . I can already hear the soccer moms muttering about the price of gas as they accidentally back over a Prius they failed to see in the rearview mirror.

Someone please explain to me why a third of the new vehicles sold (in the US) are sport utilities (that incidentally will likely transport no more than 2 people from the suburbs to downtown over paved road for their entire lifespans) as oil prices sit just under $70 a barrel?

masterapple04
Sep 20, 2005, 06:03 PM
How anyone, ANYONE, can laud an SUV in today's oil market and environmental state is beyond me. I curse at anyone who drive's an SUV of any kind - they are pointless, wasteful, and extravagant. Screw them, and the people that drive them, because they are killing all of us. :mad: :mad: :mad:

Verto
Sep 20, 2005, 06:06 PM
Barf.

EJBasile
Sep 20, 2005, 06:15 PM
How anyone, ANYONE, can laud an SUV in today's gas market and environmental state is beyond me. I curse at anyone who drive's an SUV of any kind - they are pointless, wasteful, and extravagant. Screw them, and the people that drive them, because they are killing all of us. :mad: :mad: :mad:

You know you can say that but unless gas gets over $5 SUVs won't be going anywhere. Some SUVs get the same fuel economy as minivans. What about pickup trucks. Think of how many people buy them and don't use the pickup function of them.

I think it is ugly on the outside. The hood portion looks too tall in proportion to the rest of the car and will probably cause poor visability. The WORST part IMO is that stupid hood. It makes it look like a stupid chevy uplander, The older models looked better. The interrior however is greatly improved. My father used to have the Yukon Denali and its interrior was just crap. Its the same as the Base model only with leather, GPS, and the dash had fake wood.

The stupid American car companies are getting so ugly. Chevy is going down hill along with dodge/crysler/jeep. Ford isn't nearly as ugly.

I think it is a decent upgrade but they could have done better. The Tahoe/suburban interiior was in real need of an updating I will call this car "The SUV version of the chevy uplander".

jiv3turkey748
Sep 20, 2005, 06:16 PM
it is ugly but there really isnt much they can do with a big suv like that design wise

EJBasile
Sep 20, 2005, 06:18 PM
just a bunch of curves. Typical american design.
"Hey guys, lets make everything rounded."
The line must be embraced!
http://www.bmwusa.com/NR/rdonlyres/10936A61-6CE1-4C68-8929-E7E2F18CCEB3/0/0651_05.JPG
Now that's an interior.

No...This is an interior
http://www.truckworld.com/Sport-Utility/03-LR_range_rover/RR-interior-3.jpg

aloofman
Sep 20, 2005, 06:20 PM
That may be the least interesting upcoming vehicle I can think of. Even among GM's cars and trucks, almost all others are more appealing that one. You may just be my exact opposite!

masterapple04
Sep 20, 2005, 06:22 PM
EJBasile, I know that some minivans and most pickups get similar mileage, but look at the ratio of each to the other. There are many times more Suburbans, Expeditions, Escalades, Land Rovers, Highlanders, Xterras, etc. than there are Rams, F-150s, and Caravans (this list not anywhere nearly inclusive). If you were to cut out every SUV right now, I would expect a noticable drop in fuel usage.

hoyboy9
Sep 20, 2005, 06:26 PM
Just another nail in America's gas-guzzling coffin. What are these companies thinking??? When the backlash against these wasteful vehicles really begins, Americans will turn to fuel efficient (and mostly foreign) hybrids and small cars. The Japanese are already 10 years ahead in that department.

GM needs to get on the ball and create a Prius killer, or die a slow death.

treblah
Sep 20, 2005, 06:28 PM
Well, it looks better than the Chevy Colorado but you could say that about anything that wasn't a flaming pile of poo.

Now listening to "The Big 3 Killed My Baby" ;)

ham_man
Sep 20, 2005, 06:28 PM
How anyone, ANYONE, can laud an SUV in today's oil market and environmental state is beyond me. I curse at anyone who drive's an SUV of any kind - they are pointless, wasteful, and extravagant. Screw them, and the people that drive them, because they are killing all of us. :mad: :mad: :mad:
They are indeed, but people should have the freedom to buy what they please, but I think that some sort of incentive to not should be in place...

Ford isn't nearly as ugly.
Ford is the worst of the 3 big companies, in my opinion...

unfaded
Sep 20, 2005, 06:38 PM
What the hell? This isn't new. This is the best GM could come up with to attempt to save itself from haemorrhaging money left and right?

Weak.

evil0ne
Sep 20, 2005, 06:46 PM
No...This is an interior
http://www.truckworld.com/Sport-Utility/03-LR_range_rover/RR-interior-3.jpg

I'm not even a BMW fan and I will have to disagree with your choice. There are a # of flaws with this interior

1) All the steering wheel buttons look like complete (insert explitive)
2) The knobs and gauges under the center A/C vents go under complaint #1, what is this a luxury SUV or an airplane?
3) The indentation on the passenger airbag throws off what could have been a decent look
4) the side air vents do not flow at all with the center section and don't claim they're framing the center section. There are so many unnecessary lines and hard angles I don't know how you could call this an example of a nice interior. I will give you the quality of materials and craftsmanship of the leather in the seats, but it does not really make a point of being one of the nicest interiors ever. However, I don't expect someone to understand this that also thinks that $80,000 for a truck is acceptable. If you're going to get a truck from Range Rover get an old Defender 90 and go crawl some rocks.

quagmire
Sep 20, 2005, 06:46 PM
The new GMT-900's are not supposed to be the all saving vehicle for GM. I hope the $3+ a gallon on gas will keep the soccer moms away. The Tahoe/Suburban/Silverado and there twins have a purpose. As work vehicles. Now they aren't these days as you see about 70% of them for just everyday commuting. That is American thinking, " bigger is better." For the 2008 model year, these new vehicles will come in a hybrid flavor. I am already hearing the fuel economy for these things is 20.5 for 2WD and 20.1 with 4x4 with the 5300 V8 with DOD COMBINED w/o hybrid system. GM can't let their trucks/SUV's go stale because of gas prices. GM and any other manufacture will never see SUV record sales anymore or at least not until Hydrogen is introduced and gets below $3. They need to maintain competitive so the work force will still come to them and not Ford, Dodge, Toyota, or Nissan.

cheekyspanky
Sep 20, 2005, 07:13 PM
I think you'll find THIS is an interior..

http://dinsen.net/espace/media/phase1-interior.jpg

..no..I think I'll change my mind and opt for the 5 Series one instead!

yoda13
Sep 20, 2005, 07:28 PM
Is that a Renault or a Yugo? :D

masterapple04
Sep 20, 2005, 07:33 PM
hoyboy9, I love you.

cheekyspanky
Sep 20, 2005, 07:53 PM
Is that a Renault or a Yugo? :D

It's a Renault Espace (1984 - 1987 model).

Checkered brown eh..blurgh..!

jeffy.dee-lux
Sep 20, 2005, 08:01 PM
Okay, i'm gonna take a shot at that one... is that the interior of a tercel? my buddy has like an '84 tercel or something that we use to get our bikes to the hill.

Completely ignoring the greater significance of this car and just looking at it from a design point of view: Total let down on the outside, i was kind of excited to see the new look, but just got a mild refresh that in my mind isn't as nice as the last one, which wasn't as nice as the one before (before they started rounding our those boxy headlights and grill and stuff). The interior is a definite improvement, but i agree with what someone said about straight edges being pretty nice sometimes.

I'd like to point out that Ford and GM should not be lumped together on the SUV issue. I'm studying mechanical and environmental engineering, so i've got the hippy roots and beliefs, i bike to school every day and curse just about anything with a tail pipe. At the same time, i've got a childhood crush on Ford, I think the mustang is the hottest car, and yes... some day, i WILL build a mustang that i could consider letting myself drive (ie one with a torquey electric motor charged up on quebec hydroelectricity). In the mean time, I gotta say that I follow automotive news a lot, its pretty much all i do on the net aside from checking this site and homestarrunner (hmm, that reminds me...), and lately, GM and Ford are on totally different wave lengths.

Ford has openly admitted that SUV sales are going down and staying down, and they're adjusting their production accordingly. At the same time GM says sales are gonna climb back up and that redoing all of their full size SUVs and pickups will get them back on top of things. To me, ford has seen the light and is just beginning its long turn around, with fresh new product (fusion, various hybrids), an All-Star design team, and, unfortunately, less plants operating at less than full capacity, meaning they've adjusted their capacity to the lower demand the market has shown for their cars. GM, on the other hand, seems to still feel strongly about their bland trucks.

I give GM credit for the solstice/sky, the new vette (Z06!!! holy crap its fast and cheap), for and teaming up with BMW and DC on hybrid technology.

jeffy.dee-lux
Sep 20, 2005, 08:03 PM
It's a Renault Espace (1984 - 1987 model).

Checkered brown eh..blurgh..!

oh ya, didn't see the diamond on the tiny steering wheel.

cheekyspanky
Sep 20, 2005, 08:08 PM
Someone should start a "guess the obscure car" thread - a photo of a light cluster or bit of bodywork etc and see if people manage to guess it.

I'm gonna go to bed anyway but if someone sets one up let me know! :D

HydroMan
Sep 20, 2005, 09:47 PM
Get a Range Rover
http://www.landrover.com/gb/en/Vehicles/New_Range_Rover/Gallery/Range_Rover_gallery_2BC21B73-D5E5-489F-B55C-355C96A7DDDD_199x599.jpg

Verto
Sep 20, 2005, 09:53 PM
Get a Range Rover
http://www.landrover.com/gb/en/Vehicles/New_Range_Rover/Gallery/Range_Rover_gallery_2BC21B73-D5E5-489F-B55C-355C96A7DDDD_199x599.jpg

Or accept that you have a small penis/rocky marriage/Dell/lack of self-worth/whatever, and get over the SUV fad.

HydroMan
Sep 20, 2005, 10:01 PM
Or accept that you have a small penis/rocky marriage/Dell/lack of self-worth/whatever, and get over the SUV fad.

I drive a Honda Accord and have none of the above, I think you have a problem with wishful thinking, which doesn't hurt anyone except your sensitive environmental issues.
[edit: my iMacs BIGGER than yours]

Xtremehkr
Sep 20, 2005, 10:01 PM
GM, are you starting to get the message yet?

Quit running and start competing with the company that is seriously starting to kick your ass.

Make the best product and I promise I will buy it. It's not like you don't have any advantages or anything. Time for change, you old Dinosaur.

ibilly
Sep 20, 2005, 11:40 PM
The bit that really bugs me is that they're currently advertising their better than average fuel economy–...Gm is all about going the extra mile, literally

They forget to mention that above average for a SUV is still crap. 16/20 is believe is the figure for the base engine. Disgusting.

Not only that, GM needs 6 liters to get what, 300-350 HP?
Audi's getting 414 out of 4.2 liters, naturally aspirated on the RS4. It may not get excellten fuel economy either, but if you're going to use that much gas, you might as well make it worth it. Oh yeah, the RS4's V-8 also spins to something like 8750 RPM.

GM doesn't lead in price, design, longevity, warranty, power, anything. The rare, but notable exception being perhaps cadillac, and definitely the Solstice.

It's no wonder to me that GM's slowly tanking. If they got up some engineering effort, they might get a powerful, fuel efficient engine, as many japanese makers have done. anything over 5 liters is huge, IMO, no mater how many hundreds of horsepower it makes (unless it's like the Porsche Carerra GT, which has about 5.3 liters, but is 10 cylinders and about 600 HP). GM is a displacement hog, and only has poor mileage and middle of the road power to show for it. My Audi Allroad gets 22mpg in a mix of city and highway, weights almost 4500 lbs, and has a 2.7 liter engine. Oh yeah, it’s fast and fun too.

Why doesn’t GM wake up and start doing things right?

BTW, I also think poorly of Ford and Chrystler, for the most part

Edit:despite my protests, my parents have a denali, which gets 15 mpg if you try pretty hard.

slimflem
Sep 20, 2005, 11:44 PM
sorry, but trucks are boring. i just can't imagine having one. especially a big ass V8 that sucks a whole in my pocket when i go to the pump. doesn't make much sense to me.

ibilly
Sep 20, 2005, 11:52 PM
OK, I was going to continue on my previous post, but here goes:
The denali I mentioned, it has an 'instantaneous' fuel economy reading, and because the idle is so ****ing eager, it doesn't get more than 40 or 50 MPG going down a hill, accelerating bc of gravity. It should be several hundered (4+ times better) MPG in that situation, but in the quest for power, and a cheapo 4 speed auto, it is nearly impossible to get decent mileage even when going on a primarily downhill course.
I think that all cars should have a 'coast-clutch' which effectively shifts into Neutral, or the equivalent of 7th or 8th gear when coasting to a stop or going downhill when not down-shifted (assuming its not too steep). It would reduce the need for acceleration, and like displacement on demand, would significantly improve fuel economy by eliminating completely useless consumtion.

just my rantings

quagmire
Sep 21, 2005, 12:03 AM
The bit that really bugs me is that they're currently advertising their better than average fuel economy–...Gm is all about going the extra mile, literally

They forget to mention that above average for a SUV is still crap. 16/20 is believe is the figure for the base engine. Disgusting.

Not only that, GM needs 6 liters to get what, 300-350 HP?
Audi's getting 414 out of 4.2 liters, naturally aspirated on the RS4. It may not get excellten fuel economy either, but if you're going to use that much gas, you might as well make it worth it. Oh yeah, the RS4's V-8 also spins to something like 8750 RPM.

GM doesn't lead in price, design, longevity, warranty, power, anything. The rare, but notable exception being perhaps cadillac, and definitely the Solstice.

It's no wonder to me that GM's slowly tanking. If they got up some engineering effort, they might get a powerful, fuel efficient engine, as many japanese makers have done. anything over 5 liters is huge, IMO, no mater how many hundreds of horsepower it makes (unless it's like the Porsche Carerra GT, which has about 5.3 liters, but is 10 cylinders and about 600 HP). GM is a displacement hog, and only has poor mileage and middle of the road power to show for it. My Audi Allroad gets 22mpg in a mix of city and highway, weights almost 4500 lbs, and has a 2.7 liter engine. Oh yeah, it’s fast and fun too.

Why doesn’t GM wake up and start doing things right?

BTW, I also think poorly of Ford and Chrystler, for the most part

Edit:despite my protests, my parents have a denali, which gets 15 mpg if you try pretty hard.


LOL. You are comparing a Vortec truck engine to a performance engine. Try apples to apples. 6.0 small block LS2 V8 400 HP. Then there is the 7.0 LS7 505 HP V8. Why are you pushing your performance crap? SUV's aren't for performance. There for hauling things. It amazes me the ignorance of Mac sites. I thought Mac people were supposed to be fair people since they get abuse from the Windows fanboys. Notice how different markets make your bias change. You think a person forking over $50,000 cares about $3 a gallon? Yes, there are too many people buying SUV's/trucks just for the image. It is ridiculous that people do that. Maybe if you are more opened minded, my 2002 Chevy Suburban gets up to 18 MPG highway. The new '07 Tahoe will get around 20.1 MPG COMBINED. Before you ask me why I have a Suburban, I need it to haul horse trailers full of horses. I need the towing capacity of the SUV.

Heb1228
Sep 21, 2005, 12:09 AM
Seems like everyone likes to bash GM here. I think the truck in the OP is decent looking. It will grow on me. GM's trucks have been more conservative design for years now but they are consistently the best looking trucks and SUVs out there IMO.

And GM has it right with their new Caddys! Those things are freaking awesome. The Escalade is still the best looking SUV on the road.

quagmire
Sep 21, 2005, 12:16 AM
Seems like everyone likes to bash GM here. I think the truck in the OP is decent looking. It will grow on me. GM's trucks have been more conservative design for years now but they are consistently the best looking trucks and SUVs out there IMO.

And GM has it right with their new Caddys! Those things are freaking awesome. The Escalade is still the best looking SUV on the road.

Agree. If you look back at the last 3 generation of the Tahoe/Suburban, etc including the new ones have design cues they share. I see the GMT-400's and 800's in the new 900's. I see 400 in the 800's. I see 800's in the 900's. Evolutionary is GM's key of success of these vehicles. Even though the Escalade is 8 years old, it doesn't look 8 year old. The Tahoe/Suburban do look 8 years old though. Fords answer to the Suburban was the Excursion, but you guys bash GM for these gas guzzling vehicles. The Excursion is HUGE. Bigger then the Suburban. Luckily Ford is killing it and making another replacement. GM does make the most fuel efficient full sizers and V8's( trucks).

ibilly
Sep 21, 2005, 12:22 AM
LOL. You are comparing a Vortec truck engine to a performance engine. Try apples to apples. 6.0 small block LS2 V8 400 HP. Then there is the 7.0 LS7 505 HP V8. Why are you pushing your performance crap? SUV's aren't for performance. There for hauling things. It amazes me the ignorance of Mac sites. I thought Mac people were supposed to be fair people since they get abuse from the Windows fanboys. Notice how different markets make your bias change. You think a person forking over $50,000 cares about $3 a gallon? Yes, there are too many people buying SUV's/trucks just for the image. It is ridiculous that people do that. Maybe if you are more opened minded, my 2002 Chevy Suburban gets up to 18 MPG highway. The new '07 Tahoe will get around 20.1 MPG COMBINED. Before you ask me why I have a Suburban, I need it to haul horse trailers full of horses. I need the towing capacity of the SUV.

As valid as your justification is, there is at least one engine that has about the same torque as a smaller one, but with slightly highter displacement and HP. Clearly, GM is concerned with the performance fo their engines. My point with the RS4 is that with a fairly small displacement and natural aspiration, great things are possible, much less with 6-7 liters. Thanks for the flame. The gross generalizations are also great. I remind you that most people don't 'fork over' 50K in cash, but have leases, so the costs for operation and maintenacne are nearly as significant as the MSRP.

ibilly
Sep 21, 2005, 12:27 AM
Also, why are domestics allergic to turbochargers? The A3/4's 2.0T has almost 0 turbo lag (again, with the audis–sorry, and this info is from several publications), and the only boost that domestics seem to get is the occcasional supercharger, i.e. cobalt SS and hi performance mustangs.
Turbos work well, and as I reall, are very good for torque increases. Exception: Optional turbo-deisels on some pickups

Anybody know why there are almost no turbos stock or optional in most domestics?

SharksFan22
Sep 21, 2005, 02:48 AM
I think that all cars should have a 'coast-clutch' which effectively shifts into Neutral, or the equivalent of 7th or 8th gear when coasting to a stop or going downhill when not down-shifted (assuming its not too steep). It would reduce the need for acceleration, and like displacement on demand, would significantly improve fuel economy by eliminating completely useless consumtion.

just my rantings

When I was a little kid, my father had a Saab with this exact feature. Whenever he let off the gas, the clutch would disengage and he got fantastic mileage -- something on the order or 30+ on the highway, which in the early 1970s was unheard of. However, the US government safety (NHTSA perhaps?) decided that "freewheeling" was dangerous as (I believe) it removed the driver's sense of "connection" to the road.

Cool idea though.

SharksFan22
Sep 21, 2005, 03:00 AM
How anyone, ANYONE, can laud an SUV in today's oil market and environmental state is beyond me. I curse at anyone who drive's an SUV of any kind - they are pointless, wasteful, and extravagant. Screw them, and the people that drive them, because they are killing all of us. :mad: :mad: :mad:

Wow. Such hostility. :-) I guess that since I drive a car that is designed to be driven much faster than virtually ever other car on the road, I can say screw all the hybrid drivers on the road because they get in my way and drive too slow, right? ;) Seriously though, I don't understand why people get so cranked up at gas guzzling vehicles. In my opinion (and it's only an opinion), if someone wants a car that gets 14mpg of $3+/gallon of gas then they're paying (dearly) through their wallet. On the other hand, if someone wants to pay a $4-6K premium for a hybrid that gets much, much better mileage, good for them too. They pay for it through the price of the car instead of through the price of gas. Remember when Honda and Toyota brought out fuel-efficient cars in the late-70s and early-80s in the US? They absolutely KILLED Detroit and forced GM/Ford/Chrysler to start building economical cars. If people don't like paying $3/gallon, I'll bet that in two years the SUV market will be a fraction of what it is today and sedans will become the new "hot" thing.

As far as environment is concerned, I live in California and strongly believe that air quality here is much better than is was in the 80s. Admittedly, I have no scientific basis for that statement, but it seems cleaner than it used to -- and this is with many more cars on the road than 20 years ago.

Oh yeah, on the topic of the original thread ( :rolleyes: ) I gotta say that while the interior looks like a much-needed positive upgrade, the exterior doesn't do much for me. Perhaps when I see it in person, but the pictures aren't that apepaling.

cr2sh
Sep 21, 2005, 08:52 AM
Just another nail in America's gas-guzzling coffin. What are these companies thinking??? When the backlash against these wasteful vehicles really begins, Americans will turn to fuel efficient (and mostly foreign) hybrids and small cars. The Japanese are already 10 years ahead in that department.

GM needs to get on the ball and create a Prius killer, or die a slow death.

From inside the states I completelly agree with you.

These cars however were designed 3 years ago when gas prices were still relatively cheap. No one (I'm not sure why) had a problem with 12 miles a gallon when the gallons cost $1.10, so they introduced a full line of gas guzzlers. At the same time, toyota and honda are introducing these hybrid cars and the american companies are going the exact opposite direction... they just had no foresite.

http://www.gm.com/automotive/innovations/altfuel/vehicles/pickup/hybridTruckFlyer.pdf

The hybrid work that GM is doing only provides minor (10%) improved efficiency over gas trucks. I still prefer the diesel option.

Abstract
Sep 21, 2005, 09:23 AM
From inside the states I completelly agree with you.

.......<snip>

The hybrid work that GM is doing only provides minor (10%) improved efficiency over gas trucks. I still prefer the diesel option.

Only GM could make a hybrid car that does practically nothing in improving fuel economy.

mkubal
Sep 21, 2005, 09:55 AM
I can't remember the last time I saw an American car with a nice looking interior. And I sure haven't seen one that didn't seem cheap and plasticy.

I wish I could say that this new SUV was any different, but it's not. And if I saw that new body style out on the road I really wouldn't even realize it was a new model.

I'll buy an American car when I can find a combination of classy looking outside, classy feeling inside, good gas mileage (over 20 mpg at its lowest), and reliability. Until then, they can keep making gargantuan tanks I'm not interested in because I don't go off road or haul lumber.

jsw
Sep 21, 2005, 10:24 AM
i like the charger, but why the heck is it a four door???So fathers-on-a-budget like myself can dream of something sportier than a freaking minivan. We need some way we can theoretically get the kids into the back seat.

aloofman
Sep 21, 2005, 11:09 AM
Just another nail in America's gas-guzzling coffin. What are these companies thinking??? When the backlash against these wasteful vehicles really begins, Americans will turn to fuel efficient (and mostly foreign) hybrids and small cars. The Japanese are already 10 years ahead in that department.

GM needs to get on the ball and create a Prius killer, or die a slow death.

You realize that Toyota doesn't sell many Priuses yet and makes no money on them? (Many believe they lose money on each one.) It's not a "Prius killer" that GM needs. It just needs to start building decent cars. Considering the relatively small number of hybrids being sold right now, there's not a bonanza waiting there for GM right now.

Speaking of the Prius, it's pretty overrated. I admire the technology and I hope it succeeds, but the extra initial expense will take years to pay for itself, battery replacement could be problematic, and it's not as clean-running as some gasoline-only cars. That doesn't make it a bad car, but it's not the be-all-and-end-all of automotive technology. What it really is is the exact opposite of the Hummer: a political statement in favor of environmentalism.

Lord Blackadder
Sep 21, 2005, 11:11 AM
The new GMT-900's are not supposed to be the all saving vehicle for GM. I hope the $3+ a gallon on gas will keep the soccer moms away. The Tahoe/Suburban/Silverado and there twins have a purpose. As work vehicles. Now they aren't these days as you see about 70% of them for just everyday commuting...

That's my big problem with full-size SUVs like the Tahoe. They shouldn't try to dress them up like luxury cars. The Tahoe is a great vehicle for towing trailers but it's just a waste when I see one business-suited person driving the thing 20 miles to work everyday. It ain't a commuter vehicle, people! It is a work truck!

GM and any other manufacture will never see SUV record sales anymore or at least not until Hydrogen is introduced and gets below $3.

I hope nobody's holding their breath on that one.

GM should work on putting more fuel efficient diesel engines in their SUVs - the technology is available NOW, off the shelf, and diesels would be even more appropriate for towing than the gas engines. Hybrid technology is probably not mature enough to be fitted to a heavy duty truck like the Tahoe. But low-sulphur diesel will be widespread in the US in '06.

GM recently ran an add for it's large SUVs stating how their latest crop featured engine technology (displacement on demand) that made them the "most fuel efficient SUVs on the road". However, if you look at that fine print at the bottom of the screen you will see that the EPA mileage is listed as 16mpg city. When and in what universe was that ever considered "efficient"? Better than a tank, maybe, but 40 years behind cars in economy.

Fuel prices will ultimately kill the SUV as a mainstream fashionable ride. Which is fine by me. Let farmers, contractors and offroad enthusuiasts have their trucks, but keep away the soccer moms, trendy affluent commuters and whatnot.

just a bunch of curves. Typical american design.
"Hey guys, lets make everything rounded."
The line must be embraced!
http://www.bmwusa.com/NR/rdonlyres/10936A61-6CE1-4C68-8929-E7E2F18CCEB3/0/0651_05.JPG
Now that's an interior.

Except for that horrible iDrive...

Bah. I have been a lifelong GM and Mopar man but they both have let me down. GTO? Please. Charger? Not quite. They should both learn something from what Ford did with the Mustang.

That's why I just crossed over and bought a 2006 Mustang GT on Saturday.

The GTO is a nice car - but it should be sold as a Holden Monaro, nobody would ever confuse it with anything that looked like a GTO.

The Charger I like, it combines a Mercedes E-class platform with a Hemi and pretty successful styling. Fuel economy isn't great, though I'm not sure how much an impact Chrysler's "displacement on demand" technology will help. But it is very close to being a true musclecar. The 300C isn't bad either, but it is more $$.

IMHO, the 'Stang should not have a live rear axle - the only reson it's there is demand by nostalgic hot-rodders. Please give it a fully independent rear (We know you can Ford, you did it with the last-gen Cobra). My only other issue with the Mustang is that 9 out of every ten are the wimpy V6 poser model. But in GT form it's a sweet ride for the money.

Heb1228
Sep 21, 2005, 11:30 AM
From inside the states I completelly agree with you.

These cars however were designed 3 years ago when gas prices were still relatively cheap. No one (I'm not sure why) had a problem with 12 miles a gallon when the gallons cost $1.10, so they introduced a full line of gas guzzlers. At the same time, toyota and honda are introducing these hybrid cars and the american companies are going the exact opposite direction... they just had no foresite.

http://www.gm.com/automotive/innovations/altfuel/vehicles/pickup/hybridTruckFlyer.pdf

The hybrid work that GM is doing only provides minor (10%) improved efficiency over gas trucks. I still prefer the diesel option.
For many of us, gas mileage is still only a minor consideration. My car gets 17mpg and I wouldn't trade it.

Lord Blackadder
Sep 21, 2005, 11:38 AM
[I thought my first post didn't make it up but it did...] :o

im_to_hyper
Sep 21, 2005, 12:05 PM
I definately agree with you there. SUVs are ingrained in our culture just like the dollar bill.

As to your Ford point: FORDS ROCK as of right now! They are so much better looking exterior-wise and... have you seen the interior of the new 2006 Fusion? Much like the F150. Love it!

Now in terms of gas mileage... I have a Ford Explorer that gets 21 MPG highway and around 16-17 city. I am looking to trade it in for a Jetta TDI or Golf TDI which both get 45+ MPG Highway running on diesel.

You know you can say that but unless gas gets over $5 SUVs won't be going anywhere. Some SUVs get the same fuel economy as minivans. What about pickup trucks. Think of how many people buy them and don't use the pickup function of them.

I think it is ugly on the outside. The hood portion looks too tall in proportion to the rest of the car and will probably cause poor visability. The WORST part IMO is that stupid hood. It makes it look like a stupid chevy uplander, The older models looked better. The interrior however is greatly improved. My father used to have the Yukon Denali and its interrior was just crap. Its the same as the Base model only with leather, GPS, and the dash had fake wood.

The stupid American car companies are getting so ugly. Chevy is going down hill along with dodge/crysler/jeep. Ford isn't nearly as ugly.

I think it is a decent upgrade but they could have done better. The Tahoe/suburban interiior was in real need of an updating I will call this car "The SUV version of the chevy uplander".

aloofman
Sep 21, 2005, 01:29 PM
For many of us, gas mileage is still only a minor consideration. My car gets 17mpg and I wouldn't trade it.

This is the common American sentiment. The Big Three have said over and over again that when they build fuel-efficient cars, people don't buy them. Of course, this is partly because they have a terrible record when it comes to building small cars. When the Focus is the best of them, you know they're struggling with it.

The only time that Americans really moved toward cars with better mileage was in the 1970s, when two trends converged: (1) gasoline drastically increased in price, a much bigger sticker shock -- in relative terms -- than what we've experienced in the last few years; and (2) big engines were stripped of their power by the new emissions technology of the time. When gas costs more and the gas guzzlers don't have much power anyway, small cars look like a much better deal.

Today's cars are much bigger and heavier (even the non-SUVs) than they used to be, so that the advances in engine technology have mostly gone into wringing more (and cleaner) power out of the engine and not on mileage. (My old '89 Honda Accord was not considered a small car at the time, but it was smaller than the current Civic.) Those gains have been impressive, but I think it's obvious that they need to turn to better mileage now.

There are two measures that could get us there: increase CAFE standards and increase gasoline taxes. Neither of these will happen as long as politicians pander to what people want to hear.

cr2sh
Sep 21, 2005, 03:23 PM
There are two measures that could get us there: increase CAFE standards and increase gasoline taxes. Neither of these will happen as long as politicians pander to what people want to hear.

I saw a guy on the tv over the weekend saying the exact same thing. A politician saying "we need to raise taxes on gas to get folks away from it." The benefits being that we'd raise federal funding (they can't spend it fast enough) and create an urge by the people to be less fossil fuel dependant.

I think it's the best idea I've heard in a while... wish I had a link.

SharksFan22
Sep 21, 2005, 03:32 PM
I saw a guy on the tv over the weekend saying the exact same thing. A politician saying "we need to raise taxes on gas to get folks away from it." The benefits being that we'd raise federal funding (they can't spend it fast enough) and create an urge by the people to be less fossil fuel dependant.

I think it's the best idea I've heard in a while... wish I had a link.

Gotta respectfully disagree on the tax for federal funding. IF a new tax is introduced on gasoline, it should go directly back into roads and infrastucture, not into the General Fund. Government spends WAY too much money as it is and a tax like this just feeds the appetite of that monster.

I will agree though that if the goal is to consume less gas on a per vehicle basis via better mileage, then the CAFE standards should be raised. Then, if automakers fail to comply they will have to pay fines to the government which will in turn raise the vehicle prices to customers. If the market (car buyers) doesn't like the high price/low mileage penalty, then the automaker will either stop offering those models or improve their efficiency and thereby acheive the goal of less consumption per person, per mile.

Lord Blackadder
Sep 21, 2005, 04:45 PM
This is the common American sentiment. The Big Three have said over and over again that when they build fuel-efficient cars, people don't buy them. Of course, this is partly because they have a terrible record when it comes to building small cars. When the Focus is the best of them, you know they're struggling with it.

Actually the Focus is a great car, with excellent handling, good looks (in hatchback form) and good fuel economy. Fit and finish is on par with the Japanese. The only reason people think the Civic or Corolla are superior is badge snobbery, which is a shame.

quagmire
Sep 21, 2005, 05:34 PM
GM should work on putting more fuel efficient diesel engines in their SUVs - the technology is available NOW, off the shelf, and diesels would be even more appropriate for towing than the gas engines. Hybrid technology is probably not mature enough to be fitted to a heavy duty truck like the Tahoe. But low-sulphur diesel will be widespread in the US in '06.

GM recently ran an add for it's large SUVs stating how their latest crop featured engine technology (displacement on demand) that made them the "most fuel efficient SUVs on the road". However, if you look at that fine print at the bottom of the screen you will see that the EPA mileage is listed as 16mpg city. When and in what universe was that ever considered "efficient"? Better than a tank, maybe, but 40 years behind cars in economy.

While 16 MPG city isn't the best MPG, but for the Tahoe/Suburban, they are the most efficient V8 vehicles in their class. Plus DOD isn't mainstream in the current 800's. The 900's except the 4.8 V8 has DOD standard. So that 16 MPG is w/o DOD.

aloofman
Sep 21, 2005, 06:19 PM
IF a new tax is introduced on gasoline, it should go directly back into roads and infrastucture, not into the General Fund.

I think this is defensible, even on environmental grounds. The lack of maintenance of roads and highways causes more accidents, which causes more congestion, which wastes more fuel and causes more pollution per mile driven. Even if you didn't spend the new money on new highways -- only on existing ones -- it would still reduce pollution from automobiles.

aloofman
Sep 21, 2005, 06:21 PM
Actually the Focus is a great car, with excellent handling, good looks (in hatchback form) and good fuel economy. Fit and finish is on par with the Japanese. The only reason people think the Civic or Corolla are superior is badge snobbery, which is a shame.

The Focus has also been subject to more recalls in the last ten years than any other car sold in North America. To me, that's a reason to consider the Civic and Corolla superior.

Lord Blackadder
Sep 21, 2005, 07:22 PM
The Focus has also been subject to more recalls in the last ten years than any other car sold in North America. To me, that's a reason to consider the Civic and Corolla superior.

The 2000-2004 Focus had about 10 recalls between 2000-2001, the 2001-2004 Civic had 5 between 2001-2002. Neither had further recalls. So both cars had recalls early on, but both solved the issues within a year.

It's true that the early years had a lot of recalls, but I don't think it's fair to judge the current car based solely on that - the Civic had its share too. My Nissan Altima has zero - count 'em, zero - recalls, so it is far and away the superior car by your line of reasoning (I'm inclined to agree - the Civic is smaller, slower and no more relaible ) :D

I don't want to take anything away from the Civic, which is an excellent car, but the Focus has a bad reputation with some people that it simply doesn't deserve. Just like with BMW, Honda's brand image is so strong that it sometimes prevents people from giving competitors a fair shake *cough*Mazda 3*cough*

kwajo.com
Sep 21, 2005, 09:18 PM
some day, i WILL build a mustang that i could consider letting myself drive (ie one with a torquey electric motor charged up on quebec hydroelectricity).

you mean Newfoundland's electricity that Quebec practically stole? ;)

Chip NoVaMac
Sep 21, 2005, 10:20 PM
In the end we have had since the 70's to realize that we did not have bottom less supply of oil.

Some may not remember that a few years go that even the Toyota Avalon had like 32 or 34 IIRC mpg. Transmissions can be tuned to deliver better milage. But no, we we wanted powerful SUV's and cars that gave us us less than 28 mpg.

I laugh at some "reviews" of my own Subaru Baja rated at 25mpg highway. Many reviews said they got only 22mpg highway. Guess what, keeping in 55 t0 70 mph on a straight highway shot - I get 29 mpg. I use the cruse control, when I can.

This even parallels my experiences on many rental cars. I have always been able to get 10% or better mpg over the EPA highway MPG, than what reviewers have stated. City MPG has met their limited reports on the such.

My worst MPG rating has been under sever "city" driving. And I still got 21MPG! Which was the MPG that I based my decision on. Much of my decision process on my purchase was based on the worst case situation. I get great pleasure at laughing at those that complain that it cost them $40 to $50 to fill up their SUV's.

I tell them I understand their pain. That I just spent almost $40 to fill up my tank. But this was for 18+ days of driving. When they so say, "well you drive so much less miles"; I tell them no, that I planned on gas prices going to $3 a gallon when choosing my car.

Love the stewing looks on their faces. When I am bitchy, I tell them that is the benefit of of having Depression Era parents that taught me not to take things for granted. :D

Chip NoVaMac
Sep 21, 2005, 10:25 PM
The 2000-2004 Focus had about 10 recalls between 2000-2001, the 2001-2004 Civic had 5 between 2001-2002. Neither had further recalls. So both cars had recalls early on, but both solved the issues within a year.

It's true that the early years had a lot of recalls, but I don't think it's fair to judge the current car based solely on that - the Civic had its share too. My Nissan Altima has zero - count 'em, zero - recalls, so it is far and away the superior car by your line of reasoning (I'm inclined to agree - the Civic is smaller, slower and no more relaible ) :D

I don't want to take anything away from the Civic, which is an excellent car, but the Focus has a bad reputation with some people that it simply doesn't deserve. Just like with BMW, Honda's brand image is so strong that it sometimes prevents people from giving competitors a fair shake *cough*Mazda 3*cough*

To be honest I have not cared about Honda after I heard of the oil filter issue on CRV's. I don't think there has been a recall on that issue that led to fires that destroyed CRV's.

It just shows me that under the current rules and/or Administration that consumers be damned.

hoyboy9
Sep 21, 2005, 11:26 PM
You realize that Toyota doesn't sell many Priuses yet and makes no money on them? (Many believe they lose money on each one.) It's not a "Prius killer" that GM needs. It just needs to start building decent cars. Considering the relatively small number of hybrids being sold right now, there's not a bonanza waiting there for GM right now.

Speaking of the Prius, it's pretty overrated. I admire the technology and I hope it succeeds, but the extra initial expense will take years to pay for itself, battery replacement could be problematic, and it's not as clean-running as some gasoline-only cars. That doesn't make it a bad car, but it's not the be-all-and-end-all of automotive technology. What it really is is the exact opposite of the Hummer: a political statement in favor of environmentalism.

While you're right that Prius's aren't making Toyota any cash right now, the car represents the direction that the US car market should be taking. Personally, I think our dependence on foreign oil can be greatly mitigated by doing one of two things:

1. Getting responsible cars into the market so Americans can choose to drive responsibly. This is the optimal solution.

2. Tax gasoline to penalize people who buy SUVs, forcing people to choose responsibly. This is the path that Europe has chosen, and I strongly disagree with that policy here in the US.

Fortunately, we have seen that Americans are capable of making responsible car purchases, considering the demand for hybrids. The demand has been so strong for Prius's that Toyota can't make them fast enough. This is good. While Toyota doesn't make money on each Prius purchase, you are forgetting that those dollars are NOT being spent on American cars.

The pressure is on for the Big 3. They NEED a big hybrid, because if they don't start developing something to compete, the Japanese will wipe the floor with them.

Then we'll have to waste taxpayer dollars bailing the failing American auto industry out, just like we did for United Airlines and other air carriers. I say, if these companies can't compete, let them die. Capitalism WORKS in America.

Mike Teezie
Sep 21, 2005, 11:33 PM
Yikes, that's nasty.

It would helped a little if they would have showed a black one, and not a "Members Only" gold colored one.

Lame.

$50k? For an SUV? An AMERICAN SUV? Hah, I'll take a Benz or Bimmer, thanks.

:rolleyes:

Chip NoVaMac
Sep 21, 2005, 11:38 PM
While you're right that Prius's aren't making Toyota any cash right now, the car represents the direction that the US car market should be taking. Personally, I think our dependence on foreign oil can be greatly mitigated by doing one of two things:

1. Getting responsible cars into the market so Americans can choose to drive responsibly. This is the optimal solution.

2. Tax gasoline to penalize people who buy SUVs, forcing people to choose responsibly. This is the path that Europe has chosen, and I strongly disagree with that policy here in the US.

Fortunately, we have seen that Americans are capable of making responsible car purchases, considering the demand for hybrids. The demand has been so strong for Prius's that Toyota can't make them fast enough. This is good. While Toyota doesn't make money on each Prius purchase, you are forgetting that those dollars are NOT being spent on American cars.

The pressure is on for the Big 3. They NEED a big hybrid, because if they don't start developing something to compete, the Japanese will wipe the floor with them.

Then we'll have to waste taxpayer dollars bailing the failing American auto industry out, just like we did for United Airlines and other air carriers. I say, if these companies can't compete, let them die. Capitalism WORKS in America.

AT the same point many forget that "Detroit" made close to $10K or maybe even better, on many of the larger SUV's that they have sold over the years. Add to that their lobbyists fought long and hard over the years since the 70's to prevent REAL mpg CAFE ratings.

Mike Teezie
Sep 21, 2005, 11:38 PM
In the end we have had since the 70's to realize that we did not have bottom less supply of oil.

Some may not remember that a few years go that even the Toyota Avalon had like 32 or 34 IIRC mpg. Transmissions can be tuned to deliver better milage. But no, we we wanted powerful SUV's and cars that gave us us less than 28 mpg.

I laugh at some "reviews" of my own Subaru Baja rated at 25mpg highway. Many reviews said they got only 22mpg highway. Guess what, keeping in 55 t0 70 mph on a straight highway shot - I get 29 mpg. I use the cruse control, when I can.

This even parallels my experiences on many rental cars. I have always been able to get 10% or better mpg over the EPA highway MPG, than what reviewers have stated. City MPG has met their limited reports on the such.

My worst MPG rating has been under sever "city" driving. And I still got 21MPG! Which was the MPG that I based my decision on. Much of my decision process on my purchase was based on the worst case situation. I get great pleasure at laughing at those that complain that it cost them $40 to $50 to fill up their SUV's.

I tell them I understand their pain. That I just spent almost $40 to fill up my tank. But this was for 18+ days of driving. When they so say, "well you drive so much less miles"; I tell them no, that I planned on gas prices going to $3 a gallon when choosing my car.

Love the stewing looks on their faces. When I am bitchy, I tell them that is the benefit of of having Depression Era parents that taught me not to take things for granted. :D

I do the same thing Chip. I play a "game" in my Jetta VR6.

I have real time mpg reading on the little screen. On the interstate, I get behind SUVs, 18 Wheelers, vans, trucks, whatever - and watch my mpg go up a little. It's a manual transmission (is there another kind?), so when I am going down hills or a light turns red down the road, I shift into neutral and let it coast.

My girlfriend rolls her eyes at me as I scream like a maniac, "135 mpg! 139!! 144!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, 149 mpg!!! Enjoy that suv, suucckkkaaaaaa!"

:D

SharksFan22
Sep 22, 2005, 12:54 AM
While you're right that Prius's aren't making Toyota any cash right now, the car represents the direction that the US car market should be taking. Personally, I think our dependence on foreign oil can be greatly mitigated by doing one of two things:

1. Getting responsible cars into the market so Americans can choose to drive responsibly. This is the optimal solution.


These cars exist today. All manufacturers have some form of economical, fuel-efficient cars. They may be terrible performance cars, but they acheive the goal of efficient, inexpensive transportation. I'm not someone who chooses these, but personally, I am willing to spend the extra money to put performance over efficiency.


2. Tax gasoline to penalize people who buy SUVs, forcing people to choose responsibly. This is the path that Europe has chosen, and I strongly disagree with that policy here in the US.


As much as I detest any additional tax, I'm leaning towards agreeing with you, but only if (1) it's phased in gradually so the market can absorb it and (2) the extra revenue goes directly into maintaining existing roads and building new ones. This additional tax must not be put into the hands of the politicians with their own agendas.

For what it's worth, I had an experience this weekend with gas mileage that re-affirms my belief that many roads and cars are capable of significantly better performance, but most drivers cannot pay attention to the road to utilitize this capability. I normally recognize somewhere around 17-18 mpg with mixed city and freeway driving (65-75 mph). I just retured from a 250 mile trip to the mountains - driving up in the middle of the day with virtually no traffic, I ran at speeds from 80-110mph (the car is made to run on the autobahn at speeds much higher than 110mph) and acheived just a tick under 25mpg. Now, that's probably an exception rather than the rule, but the point is that .... well, I kind of lost my train of thought, but it sure was fun watching people come up behind me at 75 or 80 mph and watch their jaws drop when I accelerated away. :rolleyes:

Now, if we can just get rid of those dang underutilized, social-engineering experiments known as carpool lanes, I'll be happy. :p

Chip NoVaMac
Sep 22, 2005, 01:10 AM
These cars exist today. All manufacturers have some form of economical, fuel-efficient cars. They may be terrible performance cars, but they acheive the goal of efficient, inexpensive transportation. I'm not someone who chooses these, but personally, I am willing to spend the extra money to put performance over efficiency.

As much as I detest any additional tax, I'm leaning towards agreeing with you, but only if (1) it's phased in gradually so the market can absorb it and (2) the extra revenue goes directly into maintaining existing roads and building new ones. This additional tax must not be put into the hands of the politicians with their own agendas.

For what it's worth, I had an experience this weekend with gas mileage that re-affirms my belief that many roads and cars are capable of significantly better performance, but most drivers cannot pay attention to the road to utilitize this capability. I normally recognize somewhere around 17-18 mpg with mixed city and freeway driving (65-75 mph). I just retured from a 250 mile trip to the mountains - driving up in the middle of the day with virtually no traffic, I ran at speeds from 80-110mph (the car is made to run on the autobahn at speeds much higher than 110mph) and acheived just a tick under 25mpg. Now, that's probably an exception rather than the rule, but the point is that .... well, I kind of lost my train of thought, but it sure was fun watching people come up behind me at 75 or 80 mph and watch their jaws drop when I accelerated away. :rolleyes:

Now, if we can just get rid of those dang underutilized, social-engineering experiments known as carpool lanes, I'll be happy. :p

In the end people like yourself should pay $5K to $10K extra today for any thing that does not deliver 25mpg or better via the EPA. This could have been introduced over the last twenty or 30 years to make it easier for you. But I suggest a $10K to $15K a year tax next year for any care since 2001 that does not meet at least 25mpg highway, according to the EPA. Funds to be split between finding other means of energy to drive our economy, and the balance to make up of for the excesses that the rest cost us at the pump today.

highres
Sep 22, 2005, 01:15 AM
BIGGER is better right? C'mon the rest of the known world is paying for it, fill'er up!! :rolleyes:

SharksFan22
Sep 22, 2005, 01:18 AM
In the end people like yourself should pay $5K to $10K extra today for any thing that does not deliver 25mpg or better via the EPA. This could have been introduced over the last twenty or 30 years to make it easier for you. But I suggest a $10K to $15K a year tax next year for any care since 2001 that does not meet at least 25mpg highway, according to the EPA. Funds to be split between finding other means of energy to drive our economy, and the balance to make up of for the excesses that the rest cost us at the pump today.

Wow, I understand you're passionate with your opinion, but I humbly ask why someone should pay an arbitrary amount just because they get less than 25mpg. I think I see where you're going and agree with it, I just disagree with the methodology. And, while I'm not a real SUV fan myself, I believe that if soemone wants to use a vehicle that consumes more energy per mile than another, they should only pay for that incremental use. Doing so keeps things level and spreads the pain out equally.

I would suggest that through the gradual tax on gasoline that goes back into roads and only roads. Once the automakers lose all their sales of low-mileage cars due to the rising gas taxes, forcing them to figure out how to make fuel efficient "saleable" cars. I think at that point, we'll see your goal of ridding the roads of SUVs due to attrition as well as alternative energy sources coming to market due to demand.

edit - fixed typos

aloofman
Sep 22, 2005, 11:13 AM
And, while I'm not a real SUV fan myself, I believe that if soemone wants to use a vehicle that consumes more energy per mile than another, they should only pay for that incremental use. Doing so keeps things level and spreads the pain out equally.


States could also charge more in registration fees based on how much gasoline they use, or total pollution, or both. Normally I'm not in favor of using taxes for social engineering, but I really believe that this change will be forced upon us eventually. So we might as well smooth the bumps and keep a little bit more of that revenue here instead of in the hands of some dictator.

aloofman
Sep 22, 2005, 11:24 AM
The demand has been so strong for Prius's that Toyota can't make them fast enough.


This is true, but not entirely accurate. Toyota hasn't made them fast enough because they underestimated demand, but sales expectations were pretty low to begin with. Toyota wisely kept production low until the market proved there really was demand for a hybrid car. And there's the side benefit of being able to add a dealer markup.

But it's really more the lack of supply at work here than great demand. While everything we hear is that the Prius is this hot car, Toyota sold a little more than 50,000 of them last year. Even if sales were to explode to 100,000 by next year, this would still be a fraction of the number of Corollas they sell. And it's way, way smaller than the number of F-series trucks sold by Ford. Out of 17 million cars sold in the U.S., Prius sales are not seriously hurting the Big Three at this point.

I guess I just get tired of hearing that hybrids are our savior from Big Oil when it's clearly not. The Prius is a neat car and I'm glad it's selling well. But this is just the very early stages of a long trend. It's not saving the world any more than the Hummer is destroying it.

SpookTheHamster
Sep 22, 2005, 11:49 AM
You Americans can quit your whining, it costs £1 a litre here in the UK.

I honestly don't understand the big-truck culture of the USA, most of your excuses are a whole load of crap, too.

First there's the "but we need the room inside" excuse: The people that design SUVs have the amazing ability to make something that is absolutely huge on the outside have as little room as possible. A hatchback normally has more room, I know my sisters Focus is more roomy and comfortable Jeep Cherokee.

Or the towing excuse; If you're towing a caravan or a horse box you're wasting most of the capacity of an engine with such high torque. Most of the sensible towers buy an estate car; You get lots of room inside, a large boot (trunk), good towing ability and you don't look like a school-run mum.

I can understand people that do actually need one: People that live down horrendous dirt roads or constantly have to travel such roads. But why would these people want leather massage seats, sat nav and cruise control? Toyota Land Cruisers and Land Rover Defenders are real SUVs.

If you're still an imbecile, and you can't tear yourself away from the SUV, get the Lexus Hybrid

Lord Blackadder
Sep 22, 2005, 11:57 AM
I guess I just get tired of hearing that hybrids are our savior from Big Oil when it's clearly not. The Prius is a neat car and I'm glad it's selling well. But this is just the very early stages of a long trend. It's not saving the world any more than the Hummer is destroying it.

This isn't about saving the world or fighting "Big Oil" - it's about money, of course. Specifically, saving the consumer money on fuel costs. The reduction of fuel consumption is an because it is wasteful is weaker market pressure than the reduction in fuel consumption due to high fuel costs.

The Prius, like the Insight, Civic hybrid and Escape hybrid, is a car that is motr important than its sales numbers show. These first generation hybrids are truly practical and their job is to establish the hybrid as a proven concept in the marketplace.

They might not be ready to take on the whole auto market, but they give the hybrid concept credibility with the consumer, and pave the way for further developmenst of the hybrid concept.

Many people talk about having a gas guzzler tax, the proceeds of which would be used to subsidize hybrid development or other "green" transportation alternatives - but if the first couple generations of hybrid cars keep improving their sales they may become profitiable in their own right as the technology matures.

camomac
Sep 22, 2005, 12:26 PM
i am glad i get 60 - 65 mpg on my vespa.
my only worry is the soccer moms driving these freak'n suv's
that try to push their way into my lane...

<begin rant>

maybe the world will start driving more scooter/motorcycles
and these jackasses will begin to pay more attention to
people on two wheels!

</rant>

quagmire
Sep 22, 2005, 01:54 PM
Yikes, that's nasty.

It would helped a little if they would have showed a black one, and not a "Members Only" gold colored one.

Lame.

$50k? For an SUV? An AMERICAN SUV? Hah, I'll take a Benz or Bimmer, thanks.

:rolleyes:

Yeah the color sucks. It will be around $32K for base for Tahoe. American cars and SUV's are reliable so stop pushing the American=crap stuff. Especially the Tahoe/Suburban, Silverado.

vixapphire
Sep 22, 2005, 02:23 PM
This is the common American sentiment.

ahem, last time i checked, the Mercedes Benz E55 AMG station wagon i bought 2 weeks ago was made in Germany, not America. Moreover, MB imports only 150 of these things per year to the USA, but sells loads of them over in Europe.

The car has a 5.5 ltr supercharged engine that is ridiculously powerful, but gas mileage isn't much better than an SUV -- i'm getting mid-teens in the city.

It's all us Americans' fault, though, isn't it? Please don't tell me that the Euro's make these cars for the American market, because the volume imported v. sold in Europe blows a hole in the hull of that argument.

Personally, I like a lot of GM's recent work: the Cadillac rejuvenation is really delightful to look at, as are many other models throughout the various lines (Solstice, Vette, etc.). And the interior of that truck quagmire posted sure is a hella improvement over the last generation.

My main gripe with American autos (and I recently owned a Jaguar/Ford S type "R" and an '02 Cadillac DTS) is that the interior materials and fitments are less than delightful. For the money, and in the market, of luxury cars like the Jag ($63k sticker) and the new Caddy XLR roadster ($76k base sticker), one expects more than door panels that really look like plastic/vinyl, and that glossy/overshined wood (on the Caddy's) that screams "plastique".

My new Benz has some rubberish injection-molded dashboard, but it still manages to affect a look and feel execution that dusts even the XLR or new STS, which are ostensibly GM's most ambitious efforts to date. Not to say that the GM stuff isn't very good (it is, truth be told); it's just not in the same league when you start to a/b it against the competition.

I think GM's play will leave it with most of the truck market should Ford drop the ball and go urban (i.e. hybrids, downsizing, etc.). On the other hand, if the diesel wave comes back, we'll again see a bunch of hyper-turbo'd diesel duallie trucks out in the back country doing their thing, and the rest of us in the cities will, as always, be free to drive the miniature hybrid cars to our hearts' content.

But my overall impression after reading a couple pages of this thread is that not enough people here spend any significant amounts of time outside of cities, at least when they're in America. I hear more cultural snobbery and intolerance and sanctimonious enviro-harping here than much in the way of enlightened discourse. Not that that's any different than what's on cable talk shows or congressional debates anymore, anyhow.

What a pathetic polity we've become, and from such high ideals.

v

vixapphire
Sep 22, 2005, 02:28 PM
I will agree though that if the goal is to consume less gas on a per vehicle basis via better mileage, then the CAFE standards should be raised. .

Thanks for playing. The problem with CAFE is that everytime it's tried, the Big 3 work around it.

Question: what is the Geo Prism?
Answer: a rebadged Toyota Corolla!
Question: what is the Dodge Stealth?
Answer: a rebadged Mitsubishi!
Question: what is the Ford Probe?
Answer: a rebadged/bodied Mazda 6!
Question: what is the Pontiac Vibe?
Answer: a rebadged Toyota Matrix!

see, the "A" in CAFE stands for "average", which means they can license in some rebranded low-end merch and continue with their own mfg capacity fully devoted to the bloated trucksters that make driving visibility such a pain in the arse. until someone figures out a way to rejigger CAFE so it actually means something, color me skeptical.

vixapphire
Sep 22, 2005, 02:30 PM
Actually the Focus is a great car, with excellent handling, good looks (in hatchback form) and good fuel economy. Fit and finish is on par with the Japanese. The only reason people think the Civic or Corolla are superior is badge snobbery, which is a shame.

I thought the Focus was originally built for/marketed in Europe as the Ford "Ka"? What a great name that is, by the way. Loads cooler/funnier than "Focus", and probably would attract some of the hipster cache currently owned by cars like the mini and the "new" beetle...

vixapphire
Sep 22, 2005, 02:35 PM
The pressure is on for the Big 3. They NEED a big hybrid, because if they don't start developing something to compete, the Japanese will wipe the floor with them.

Then we'll have to waste taxpayer dollars bailing the failing American auto industry out, just like we did for United Airlines and other air carriers. I say, if these companies can't compete, let them die. Capitalism WORKS in America.

With you 100% mang. I think the Lexus 330 is already out in hybrid form (or it's coming very soon, but i could've sworn i parked next to the "h" model last week), which means, to borrow Arch Obler's famous phrase, "It's getting later than you thinnnnk"... The warning bell's ringing in Detroit; is anyone doing anything about it, and how quickly?

vixapphire
Sep 22, 2005, 02:42 PM
In the end people like yourself should pay $5K to $10K extra today for any thing that does not deliver 25mpg or better via the EPA. This could have been introduced over the last twenty or 30 years to make it easier for you. But I suggest a $10K to $15K a year tax next year for any care since 2001 that does not meet at least 25mpg highway, according to the EPA. Funds to be split between finding other means of energy to drive our economy, and the balance to make up of for the excesses that the rest cost us at the pump today.

people who buy less fuel-efficient cars already pay a "gas-guzzler tax", which is calculated as some percentage of the sticker on the vehicle. $10 to 15k per year is ridiculous: if that's to be the case, people could go out, buy a couple-years-old corolla or escort, beat the tar out of it for a year, throw it away on one of those eco-unfriendly dumps/landfills, and buy another, all for less money. that's the best you can do?

hint: avoid beginning from the position that someone must be punished. it makes you sound small and envious, even though you're not. all that jabberwocky about politics being perception has a grain of truth to it, after all. :)

Lord Blackadder
Sep 22, 2005, 02:43 PM
I thought the Focus was originally built for/marketed in Europe as the Ford "Ka"? What a great name that is, by the way. Loads cooler/funnier than "Focus", and probably would attract some of the hipster cache currently owned by cars like the mini and the "new" beetle...

Nope, the Ka is actually a completely different Ka, er, car. Smaller, for one thing.

I can't imagine selling it in the 'States - they'd have to change the name for Massachusetts residents. ;) :D

vixapphire
Sep 22, 2005, 02:47 PM
You Americans can quit your whining, it costs £1 a litre here in the UK.

I honestly don't understand the big-truck culture of the USA, most of your excuses are a whole load of crap, too.

First there's the "but we need the room inside" excuse: The people that design SUVs have the amazing ability to make something that is absolutely huge on the outside have as little room as possible. A hatchback normally has more room, I know my sisters Focus is more roomy and comfortable Jeep Cherokee.

Or the towing excuse; If you're towing a caravan or a horse box you're wasting most of the capacity of an engine with such high torque. Most of the sensible towers buy an estate car; You get lots of room inside, a large boot (trunk), good towing ability and you don't look like a school-run mum.

I can understand people that do actually need one: People that live down horrendous dirt roads or constantly have to travel such roads. But why would these people want leather massage seats, sat nav and cruise control? Toyota Land Cruisers and Land Rover Defenders are real SUVs.

If you're still an imbecile, and you can't tear yourself away from the SUV, get the Lexus Hybrid

Right said fred. Wagons rule for any kind of capacity needs. I'm always amazed at how much of the miniscule interior space of these SUV's is wasted/unusable. I looked at the new Range Rover Sport Supercharged the other day and couldn't believe that, not only does it have next to zero rear legroom, it's got a trunk smaller than my wife's bimmer 325 wagon! The thing is huge from the outside, weighs 5500lbs and gets turd-burgling gas mileage; and for what, really? all that for image? I'd rather spend the $75k on a 2 year old SL500 if it's all just about appearances...

cr2sh
Sep 22, 2005, 02:49 PM
Yeah the color sucks. It will be around $32K for base for Tahoe. American cars and SUV's are reliable so stop pushing the American=crap stuff. Especially the Tahoe/Suburban, Silverado.

I would agree that initial quality on Suburbans/Silverados is high... however the reliability is up for debate. We've been having a lot of problems with our 2002 Silverado 2500 HD's. My truck is being serviced right now (blown head gasket) and I can think many other problems we've had with them. In total, 10 at this office and the long term (most at or near 100,000 miles) history of these trucks have not been fantastic. This hasn't always been the case.. we've been a chevy only company for about 20 years now, but the batch that we're starting to get rid of now haven't been that great. There are at least two that had a reasonable shot at getting lemoned, I would think.

SharksFan22
Sep 22, 2005, 02:50 PM
I thought the Focus was originally built for/marketed in Europe as the Ford "Ka"? What a great name that is, by the way. Loads cooler/funnier than "Focus", and probably would attract some of the hipster cache currently owned by cars like the mini and the "new" beetle...

Nope -- the Ka is a different, even smaller vehicle. When I was in Brazil these things were all over the streets of Sao Paulo.

vixapphire
Sep 22, 2005, 02:51 PM
i am glad i get 60 - 65 mpg on my vespa.
my only worry is the soccer moms driving these freak'n suv's
that try to push their way into my lane...

<begin rant>

maybe the world will start driving more scooter/motorcycles
and these jackasses will begin to pay more attention to
people on two wheels!

</rant>

one of your vespa-riding brethren came barrelling out of his parking garage without looking both ways the other day and nearly ruined my week-old new wagon. he ditched his bike, scuffed his nice harris tweed suit and missed my car (which was driving safely within the limit, on my own side of the road, etc.) by mere millimetres.

further to your statement, perhaps *those* jackasses will begin to pay more attention to people in four-wheeled vehicles too. remember, there's no monopoly on jackassery!

v

p.s. let me add that I was damn glad the guy was uninjured and was able to get up, start his bike and ride away. The door panel of my car was not exactly my greatest of worries as the guy disappeared beneath my window-line; he really could've farg'd himself up pretty nastily.

quagmire
Sep 22, 2005, 03:46 PM
I would agree that initial quality on Suburbans/Silverados is high... however the reliability is up for debate. We've been having a lot of problems with our 2002 Silverado 2500 HD's. My truck is being serviced right now (blown head gasket) and I can think many other problems we've had with them. In total, 10 at this office and the long term (most at or near 100,000 miles) history of these trucks have not been fantastic. This hasn't always been the case.. we've been a chevy only company for about 20 years now, but the batch that we're starting to get rid of now haven't been that great. There are at least two that had a reasonable shot at getting lemoned, I would think.

Ouch. You got some lemons. Well I have had a 1996 Chevy Suburban. It ran great. 0 problems with it besides the regular maintenance( oil. tires, etc). Then 9/11 came around and I decided to take advantage of the good deals due to 9/11 and traded the Suburban in at 82,000 miles and got a 2002 Suburban. Same story so far with the current one. Zero problems besides regular maintenance. Currently at 50,000+ miles. Plan on getting the new Tahoe around next fall. Sure I will get a lemon one day from GM. I am not problem free proof. Sorry about your trouble. What engines do they have? The 5.3 V8, 6.0 V8, or the diesel, or the 4.3 V6?

Personally, I like a lot of GM's recent work: the Cadillac rejuvenation is really delightful to look at, as are many other models throughout the various lines (Solstice, Vette, etc.). And the interior of that truck quagmire posted sure is a hella improvement over the last generation.

My main gripe with American autos (and I recently owned a Jaguar/Ford S type "R" and an '02 Cadillac DTS) is that the interior materials and fitments are less than delightful. For the money, and in the market, of luxury cars like the Jag ($63k sticker) and the new Caddy XLR roadster ($76k base sticker), one expects more than door panels that really look like plastic/vinyl, and that glossy/overshined wood (on the Caddy's) that screams "plastique".

Well I agree about the interiors. As you see though GM is making HUGE improvements in that area. Some could say bigger then the quality improvement. The new Tahoe, the HHR, the H3, the new Impala, and other new or redesigned vehicles recently have gotten huge improvements in interior job. Even the new 2006 DTS( that replaces your 2002 Deville) has a great interior. Oh yeah, the GMC Yukon will be unveiled October 5th, and the Escalade will be unveiled in sometime in November.

aloofman
Sep 22, 2005, 04:22 PM
This isn't about saving the world or fighting "Big Oil" - it's about money, of course. Specifically, saving the consumer money on fuel costs.


The case for saving money on gas by buying a Prius is not a great one because of the batteries. The extra cost of the batteries and more complex drivetrain offset much of the gasoline savings right off the bat. About six months ago I heard some studies saying that it would have to be driven about 100,000 miles before that investment is returned. Of course gasoline was cheaper then, but either way you're basically paying for the first few years' difference in gasoline right up front.

As long as you drive it for that long, yes, you'll save money on gasoline. This is assuming that the batteries don't need to be replaced before then, but even when they are replaced, that cost goes against your gasoline expenditures again.

My point is not that hybrids suck or that the technology is a scam or anything like that. My point is that if you really wanted to save money on gasoline, there are other economy cars that get very good mileage without the extra cost that a hybrid has. That extra cost means that buying a hybrid is more about you making a personal/social/political statement about conserving gasoline (nothing wrong with that) than it is about saving money. As economies of scale get better, hybrids will surely get cheaper relative to gasoline-only cars and then it really will be about saving money.

aloofman
Sep 22, 2005, 04:25 PM
You Americans can quit your whining, it costs £1 a litre here in the UK.

I honestly don't understand the big-truck culture of the USA, most of your excuses are a whole load of crap, too.

I can understand people that do actually need one: People that live down horrendous dirt roads or constantly have to travel such roads. But why would these people want leather massage seats, sat nav and cruise control? Toyota Land Cruisers and Land Rover Defenders are real SUVs.


You replied off my post, but I can't tell if you're refuting something I said. Anyway, I agree that SUVs are mostly a culture thing and have little to do with utility for most people.

I also agree that Land Rover makes real SUVs. Assuming you can keep one running. All the ones shipped over here are driven by people with more money than sense.

aloofman
Sep 22, 2005, 04:29 PM
Thanks for playing. The problem with CAFE is that everytime it's tried, the Big 3 work around it.

Question: what is the Geo Prism?
Answer: a rebadged Toyota Corolla!
Question: what is the Dodge Stealth?
Answer: a rebadged Mitsubishi!
Question: what is the Ford Probe?
Answer: a rebadged/bodied Mazda 6!
Question: what is the Pontiac Vibe?
Answer: a rebadged Toyota Matrix!

see, the "A" in CAFE stands for "average", which means they can license in some rebranded low-end merch and continue with their own mfg capacity fully devoted to the bloated trucksters that make driving visibility such a pain in the arse. until someone figures out a way to rejigger CAFE so it actually means something, color me skeptical.

The rebranding you're describing does nothing to diminish the CAFE standards. Each company's fleet of sold cars has to average a certain amount. The Geo's mileage counts on GM's average, but they still have to sell them. Likewise, it does not count on Toyota's average (although I think it might actually be made by Suzuki, but I could be wrong), so Toyota still has to make other higher mileage cars to meet the average.

What this rebranding really does is show that the Big Three aren't very good at building their own economy cars. But then we knew that already didn't we?

camomac
Sep 22, 2005, 04:32 PM
further to your statement, perhaps *those* jackasses will begin to pay more attention to people in four-wheeled vehicles too. remember, there's no monopoly on jackassery!

agreed completely! but there are definately more people on four wheels than there are on two, so the jackassery (what a word) scale is a little skewed...

cheekyspanky
Sep 22, 2005, 05:18 PM
I thought the Focus was originally built for/marketed in Europe as the Ford "Ka"? What a great name that is, by the way. Loads cooler/funnier than "Focus", and probably would attract some of the hipster cache currently owned by cars like the mini and the "new" beetle...

This is the Ka (my mums one actually)..

http://www.adamwilliams.co.uk/image_links/Ford_Ka_Front.jpg
http://www.adamwilliams.co.uk/image_links/Ford_Ka.jpg

And its dinky little 1.3 litre engine..

http://www.adamwilliams.co.uk/image_links/Ford_Ka_Engine.jpg

hoyboy9
Sep 22, 2005, 05:45 PM
Great discussion! I'm enjoying reading all of your thoughts on this issue. I am going to graduate this next spring with a BS in Chemical Engineering, and I'm thinking about getting into the petrochemical sector.

Some of you really struck the core issue, that is, the amount of fossil fuel is finite. My hope is that with OPEC controlling more than 50% of the world's light crude, US oil companies will be forced to innovate or die, as it will be increasingly expensive to produce oil.

This will be hopefully be a great time for emerging fuel technologies, such as biodiesel.

cheekyspanky
Sep 22, 2005, 06:22 PM
As far as I'm aware biodiesel is charged the standard rate of tax on fuel in the UK - and therefore is pretty much guaranteed to never take off here.

LPG was promoted for a while, but even that seems to have become less advertised now.

The car makers really need to push one standard as then we can change to less environmentally damaging fuels quicker.

reberto
Sep 23, 2005, 01:17 AM
i love the new mustang

the gto is just ugly.... fast, but ugly
i like the charger, but why the heck is it a four door???

Finally, somebody else with a Mustang. Dare to race against my 65' GT Fastback?

Chundles
Sep 23, 2005, 05:20 AM
The GTO is only ugly cause the Americans took an understated sleek design and messed it up with a more aggressive nose and stupidly-over-the-top bonnet scoops.

Now our Monaro looks like a bits and pieces rice boy racer instead of looking good.

And that's not a ute, this is a ute...

http://www.fpv.com.au/upload/image/1148_30x09x2004111903AM.jpg

The Ford Tornado, turbocharged 4L straight six. Very ********* Quick.

bigandy
Sep 23, 2005, 08:59 AM
I think it's funny, american cars and their horsepower - six litre engine to produce 300 odd brake, when my 2.5 litre V6 produces 355bhp OH YEAH!

jayscheuerle
Sep 23, 2005, 09:31 AM
Seriously though, I don't understand why people get so cranked up at gas guzzling vehicles. In my opinion (and it's only an opinion), if someone wants a car that gets 14mpg of $3+/gallon of gas then they're paying (dearly) through their wallet.

I think more people are bothered by the fact that these are dangerous vehicles that turn good drivers into bad drivers and bad drivers into killers.

jayscheuerle
Sep 23, 2005, 09:36 AM
Actually the Focus is a great car, with excellent handling, good looks (in hatchback form) and good fuel economy. Fit and finish is on par with the Japanese. The only reason people think the Civic or Corolla are superior is badge snobbery, which is a shame.

Focus is a decent car (I'm buying my girlfriend's next month), far from great and has nowhere NEAR the fit and finish of Hondas or Toyotas (no American cars do). It gets the job done, and I'm selling my Acura Vigor for the pleasure to drive it, but SERIOUSLY...

Abstract
Sep 23, 2005, 10:06 AM
The US version of the Focus is the most recalled car in history, no?

I guess the Focus is a great car, but outside of North America. ;)

Lets see what happens with the transition towards the new Focus model in Europe and Australia. It's already starting to look like every other car on the road. I actually got used to the old Focus hatchback, and started to like it after a while.

jayscheuerle
Sep 23, 2005, 10:17 AM
The GTO is only ugly cause the Americans took an understated sleek design and messed it up with a more aggressive nose and stupidly-over-the-top bonnet scoops.

Now our Monaro looks like a bits and pieces rice boy racer instead of looking good.

And that's not a ute, this is a ute...

http://www.fpv.com.au/upload/image/1148_30x09x2004111903AM.jpg

The Ford Tornado, turbocharged 4L straight six. Very ********* Quick.

El Camino... Redeux...

Lord Blackadder
Sep 23, 2005, 10:31 AM
far from great and has nowhere NEAR the fit and finish of Hondas or Toyotas (no American cars do)...

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree there. Generally I won't defend US car build quality but in the case of the Foci I've driven the quality was very good, maybe not 100% up to the Japanese, but very good.

I think it's funny, american cars and their horsepower - six litre engine to produce 300 odd brake, when my 2.5 litre V6 produces 355bhp OH YEAH!

What is it? a Noble? In which case it's a turbo'd Mondeo engine, so of course it's going to have a high specific output. Take that six liter engine you're talking about and slap a couple turbos on it and you'll have some very nice numbers - look at Lingenfelter Corvetttes, for example. The Ford 2.5L V6 from the Contour/Mondeo is a really nice engine though.

Anyway the huge truck engines the OP was talking about are designed for big fat torque at low RPM - not high specific output. A more appropriate engine for comparison would be Chevy's LeMans-proven LS7. In road car form this 7 liter engine produces 505hp and spins up to 7000 RPM. In race form it produces 100+ more horsepower and revs significantly higher. It might not win any battles over specific power but it is very reliable with an excellent torque curve. In contrast the Ford GT uses a supercharged 5.4L, 550hp V8 that has over 100 hp per liter.

Chundles
Sep 23, 2005, 11:16 AM
El Camino... Redeux...


Actually, Noooo, it's the evolution of the world's first ute, the Ford Coupe Utility from back in the 30's.

We've never had the El Camino here.

This is the baby of the range, the daddy comes with a 5.4L V8 but I reckon the Turbo 6 is cooler.

jayscheuerle
Sep 23, 2005, 11:21 AM
Actually, Noooo, it's the evolution of the world's first ute, the Ford Coupe Utility from back in the 30's.

We've never had the El Camino here.

This is the baby of the range, the daddy comes with a 5.4L V8 but I reckon the Turbo 6 is cooler.

An ute with those wheels? Are spinners an option along with a Bazooka sub?

That looks squarely aimed at the gangsta boy market...

Chundles
Sep 23, 2005, 04:38 PM
An ute with those wheels? Are spinners an option along with a Bazooka sub?

That looks squarely aimed at the gangsta boy market...

This is Australia - hardly the place for the "gangsta boy" market. This is more built for tradesmen who don't need to carry a huge load but want something they can go do some serious circle work with in the paddock after work. That or try and pull the chicks at the Deniliquin Ute Muster.

One thing I can guarantee, you're more likely to hear Slim Dusty on that stereo than Slim Shady.

Mechcozmo
Sep 23, 2005, 07:27 PM
I still think the current Prius models are pretty cool looking...:)

And that isn't too "new" in my opinion. Just some new plastic, blah blah blah. :rolleyes:

maxterpiece
Sep 23, 2005, 08:33 PM
You know you can say that but unless gas gets over $5 SUVs won't be going anywhere. Some SUVs get the same fuel economy as minivans. What about pickup trucks. Think of how many people buy them and don't use the pickup function of them.

The popular pick-ups are MUCH cheaper than the popular SUVs and are only popular in rural areas where they are much more likely to be useful... dirt roads, more snow and less plows, etc. They also are real trucks built on a much more solid truck frame.

As far as minivans go, lets look at an example (data from fueleconomy.gov):
Honda Odyssey 2005: 28mpg highway, 20 city annual fuel costs: $1820
Honda Pilot 2005: 22mpg highway, 19 city, annual fuel costs: $2201
Both cars seat seven, but the odyssey uses 20% less fuel on average. Furthermore, maybe not in the case of the pilot, but in the case of many SUVs, the drivers are more likely to be driving alone when compared to minivans. I'm gonna take a guess and say the average # of people riding in the average large SUV is about 1.5, and in a minivan it's like 2.5. Now the avg mpg/person is about 30 for the SUV and is like 60 for the minivan. That makes the minivan twice as economical a car.

SUVs, especially the most glamourous ones like the big infinitis, H2s, Land Cruisers, all get horrid gas mileage, and are mostly bought in more urban areas where they don't even have the potential to be used for their off-road capabilities. People buy them not only because they are a fad, but because they feel safer and they ARE safer - the reason that they are safer is because there are other SUVs on the road that will slaughter any regular car in a collision. they feel safer because you are up high and can see the road. When you are in a car, that giant suburban in front of you blocks your entire field of vision, but if you are in that suburban you can see right over those tree huggers in their prius. You could get in an accident with an insight and the insight could be totalled while you only have a dented bumper.

The bottom line is that the gas guzzler tax needs to be doubled so that SUVs are priced like the unnecessary glamourous wastes that they are. In addition to that, car safety ratings should put equal weight on the damage a vehicle can do to other vehicles and the actual safety that vehicle provides for its passengers. Those dangerous vehicles need to be clearly labelled as such and, a tax should be applied to cover all money that is lost from the damage that vehicle can potentially do.

No SUV that gets less than 20mpg should cost less than 40k.

EDIT: I realize that was a rant and a rather off-topic one at that. The GMC are more work vehicles I suppose. Anyway, take it for what it is.

maxterpiece
Sep 23, 2005, 09:05 PM
This is the Ka (my mums one actually)..
Haha, that's kinda cute. 55mpg on the highway too. Probably would only cost like 11k in the US too. I'd buy one.

maxterpiece
Sep 23, 2005, 09:12 PM
Wow, I understand you're passionate with your opinion, but I humbly ask why someone should pay an arbitrary amount just because they get less than 25mpg. I think I see where you're going and agree with it, I just disagree with the methodology. And, while I'm not a real SUV fan myself, I believe that if soemone wants to use a vehicle that consumes more energy per mile than another, they should only pay for that incremental use. Doing so keeps things level and spreads the pain out equally.

I would suggest that through the gradual tax on gasoline that goes back into roads and only roads. Once the automakers lose all their sales of low-mileage cars due to the rising gas taxes, forcing them to figure out how to make fuel efficient "saleable" cars. I think at that point, we'll see your goal of ridding the roads of SUVs due to attrition as well as alternative energy sources coming to market due to demand.

edit - fixed typos

It seems to me that you think a free market will lead us down the right path. Labor laws, meat quality laws, Anti-monopoly laws are here for a reason. 100% free market doesn't work! Corporations will abuse in any way they can to make money and they need government to guide them down a slightly more moral path. Oil is destroying our environment and without a doubt has played a large part in much of america's foreign policy over the last 15 years. A lot of people with a lot of money are invested in the oil business and they will use their influence to keep the US dependent on their product. The only reason we don't have these laws is because of this influence and the only thing that's going to change things is if people stop being passive about things and fight for the future of our planet and our nation and for what is good sound sense.

w_parietti22
Sep 24, 2005, 12:51 AM
It looks like a Ford.

highres
Sep 24, 2005, 01:04 AM
It seems to me that you think a free market will lead us down the right path. Labor laws, meat quality laws, Anti-monopoly laws are here for a reason. 100% free market doesn't work! Corporations will abuse in any way they can to make money and they need government to guide them down a slightly more moral path. Oil is destroying our environment and without a doubt has played a large part in much of america's foreign policy over the last 15 years. A lot of people with a lot of money are invested in the oil business and they will use their influence to keep the US dependent on their product. The only reason we don't have these laws is because of this influence and the only thing that's going to change things is if people stop being passive about things and fight for the future of our planet and our nation and for what is good sound sense.


well said max...

beatle888
Sep 24, 2005, 01:36 AM
Ok, before I begin; yes this is a gas guzzling SUV. It is just a sweet design. The 4800 gets 290 HP, the 5300 iron and aluminum block gets 320 HP, the 6.0 iron block gets 350 HP, the aluminum block 6.0 gets 355 HP, and the 6.2 gets 400 HP. The 6.2 engine will gain GM's new 6 speed auto.

http://www.gm-trucks.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=34

http://gm-trucks.com/home/content/view/235/1/1/0/



looking at those interior pictures i dont see how my girlfriends suppose to lean over and a....well, rub my shoulders.

ryannel2003
Sep 24, 2005, 08:34 AM
All you people are crazy! The new Tahoe is leaps and bounds over the old one. I mean hell, look at the interior of both of them. I know it looks better than my mom's GMC Yukon XL inside and out. But I personally think the GMC version will look better.

BTW, some mom's do not want a van and have 3 kids like mine does, so she needs a Yukon XL. So lay off!

Rhomboid1
Sep 24, 2005, 09:42 AM
No...This is an interior
http://www.truckworld.com/Sport-Utility/03-LR_range_rover/RR-interior-3.jpg
Here's another nice interior. iPod integration also, displayed in dash. :)

Orlando Furioso
Sep 24, 2005, 05:42 PM
wow... that is one ugly gas guzzler.

zpictures
Sep 24, 2005, 07:03 PM
Wow.. don't you guys realize that not everyone can survive in a itty bitty Prius! Some people need the utility and the capacity that these "ugly gas guzzlers" provide. How can you be so close minded? People need them, its not like people who drive SUVs drive them to Guzzle gas and to ruin the enviroment. And since we're on an Apple Fan site, GM has the most models with iPod compatability due to the addition of the AUX line in on all models. Granted its not a full integration, its a great step forward.
I think you guys need to do a little research about your beloved japanese companies that are building those "green" hybrids. If you look at the MPG of the Toyota highlander, its around 15 mpg average. Look at the new Tahoe, over 20 mpg with a hybrid coming. and the hybrid will add around 25% to that already good fuel economy.
Pull your heads out.

DakotaGuy
Sep 24, 2005, 07:32 PM
Well this is probably the best new Big 3 product that is coming out right now...

http://www.familycar.com/RoadTests/FordFusion/Photos.htm

I would say that is a nice car for the price. It is the first car from Ford or GM for that matter that will compete against the Accord or Camry. In fact, even the press (who hates domestic and would love to see Ford and GM go under to make big headlines) have given this new car rave reviews.

As for the new Super-Sized GM SUV's? I have a 2005 Ford Explorer with a V6. Why anyone would ever want an SUV bigger then a midsized is beyond me. I guess if you need to tow very heavy loads you might need one. I see A lot of the Ford Expedition in the rear of these new GM SUV's. Interior design? Yes, an improvement over the normal GM "tacky plastic" dashboard, but even Ford already has beat the new GM design. Attached is the interior of the 2006 Explorer.

Ok, now for this comment...

EJBasile, I know that some minivans and most pickups get similar mileage, but look at the ratio of each to the other. There are many times more Suburbans, Expeditions, Escalades, Land Rovers, Highlanders, Xterras, etc. than there are Rams, F-150s, and Caravans (this list not anywhere nearly inclusive). If you were to cut out every SUV right now, I would expect a noticable drop in fuel usage.

What are you talking about? Have you ever looked at the sales figures for the last 20 years or more? Do you have any idea how many F-Series, Silverado/Sierras, and RAM trucks are sold? F-Series is number one in the world of all vehicles built. Around 900,000 were sold last year. Many companies can only dream of sales figures like that. Add in another almost 900,000 from GM and 350,000 or so from Dodge. I would say your many more times the SUV's then Pickups and Mini-vans is a very flawed idea.

SharksFan22
Sep 24, 2005, 09:56 PM
It seems to me that you think a free market will lead us down the right path. Labor laws, meat quality laws, Anti-monopoly laws are here for a reason. 100% free market doesn't work! Corporations will abuse in any way they can to make money and they need government to guide them down a slightly more moral path. Oil is destroying our environment and without a doubt has played a large part in much of america's foreign policy over the last 15 years. A lot of people with a lot of money are invested in the oil business and they will use their influence to keep the US dependent on their product. The only reason we don't have these laws is because of this influence and the only thing that's going to change things is if people stop being passive about things and fight for the future of our planet and our nation and for what is good sound sense.

Yes, I do believe that a free market is one thing that will lead us in the right direction. And yes, corporations will do anything they can to make money -- that's why they exist, not primarily for the good of the community or anything like that. Their number one objective is to make money. I will agree with you though that a free market is not a 100% solution for everything -- the problem is where is the balance? For example, is it the government mandating that half the cars they sell in 2007 be hybrids? Probably not, but I do support government issuing mild guidelines or minimums. I do think it's realistic to put a 5-year plan in place that raises minimum corporate standards maybe one mpg per year. Maybe more, I don't know. What I'm trying to say is that I support the government putting frameworks around things BUT I want the market to figure out the solution, not the goverment.

And as far as the government (regardless of party) leading ANYONE down a moral path? Please take no offense, I that's a pretty good oxymoron. :D

Chip NoVaMac
Sep 24, 2005, 11:05 PM
people who buy less fuel-efficient cars already pay a "gas-guzzler tax", which is calculated as some percentage of the sticker on the vehicle. $10 to 15k per year is ridiculous: if that's to be the case, people could go out, buy a couple-years-old corolla or escort, beat the tar out of it for a year, throw it away on one of those eco-unfriendly dumps/landfills, and buy another, all for less money. that's the best you can do?

hint: avoid beginning from the position that someone must be punished. it makes you sound small and envious, even though you're not. all that jabberwocky about politics being perception has a grain of truth to it, after all. :)

To be honest, those vehicles that would be subject to such a tax would in the end being a small part of the "problem". My thoughts are that the $10-25K "tax" would pay for development of better fuel economy vehicles. And a good portion would go to developing mass transit.

I have little sympathy for those quoted in the news bout the pain they feel in buying gas. While they drive the Expeditions and such. I bought my Baja when gas was $1.30 to $1.60 a gallon. I felt that gas could go to $3 a gallon. I did the math, and it was worth the "pain" at the pump.

I love telling those people that tell me that it just cost them $40+ to fill up, that I feel their "pain". I paid the same amount, but it lasted me 18 days or better.

I would rather deal in trying to find proper disposal of old beat up cars that gave better milage, than to have the "wealthy" think that they can have their way on the future generations.

maxterpiece
Sep 24, 2005, 11:15 PM
Yes, I do believe that a free market is one thing that will lead us in the right direction. And yes, corporations will do anything they can to make money -- that's why they exist, not primarily for the good of the community or anything like that. Their number one objective is to make money. I will agree with you though that a free market is not a 100% solution for everything -- the problem is where is the balance? For example, is it the government mandating that half the cars they sell in 2007 be hybrids? Probably not, but I do support government issuing mild guidelines or minimums. I do think it's realistic to put a 5-year plan in place that raises minimum corporate standards maybe one mpg per year. Maybe more, I don't know. What I'm trying to say is that I support the government putting frameworks around things BUT I want the market to figure out the solution, not the goverment.

And as far as the government (regardless of party) leading ANYONE down a moral path? Please take no offense, I that's a pretty good oxymoron. :D

I pretty much agree with everything you say here. I probably should have used the word sensible instead of moral. However, I don't expect any unusually sensible acts from US politicians as long as there's no serious... well let's stay away from politics...

DakotaGuy
Sep 24, 2005, 11:45 PM
The popular pick-ups are MUCH cheaper than the popular SUVs and are only popular in rural areas where they are much more likely to be useful... dirt roads, more snow and less plows, etc. They also are real trucks built on a much more solid truck frame.


Have you priced a new pickup lately? They are NOT MUCH cheaper unless you are talking a small 2wd stripper compact pickup.

I have a Ford Explorer V6 and I use the 4x4 all the time living in a rural area with little snowplowing and some muddy gravel roads. I also have a small trailer that I have to pull once in awhile. I could have bought a pickup to do the same thing, but why have the empty box following me around all the time?

Pickups are popular everywhere. It is funny to see someone slam SUV's and then give a free pass to pickups. Full sized V8 pickups are hardly fuel efficient. It's not just GM or Ford either, the Nissan Titan and Toyota Tundra are hard on fuel. Even compact trucks (well only the Ford Ranger is still truly a compact) are not that easy on gas.

If you ever checked the sales figures, like I just posted, the most popular vehicle sales wise in the entire world is the Ford F-Series with the GM Silverado/Sierra twins right behind it. Combined sales of Ford/GM/Dodge/Toyota and Nissan is almost 2 million units!!! You can go on all the time about how many more SUV's are out there, but it is not true.

I could have purchased an F150, which you would consider an "Acceptable" vehicle because it is a pickup and not an SUV. However, for my needs the Explorer is smaller, can haul more people, pull my trailer and get better fuel economy with a V6 engine then the V8 in the F150.

technocoy
Sep 25, 2005, 12:18 AM
"I think it's funny, american cars and their horsepower - six litre engine to produce 300 odd brake, when my 2.5 litre V6 produces 355bhp OH YEAH!"

slap a 6 horse trailer on that V6 and take it up a mountain. You will be buying a new engine and transmission less than one quarter up the hill.

I also think it's funny all the people who are slamming SUV's only... I mean really. Pilot VS F150 V8 or a Cadillac V8 (car)... come one.. you guys are suffering from what is called displacement. I agree the LARGE SUV market is overpopular right now for sure with college students and housemoms and small penis business men, but the platform altogether DOES have its place.

A funny story (and this is very typical of many of the people i run into slamming SUVs). I have these two REALLY left friends (i'm a bit of a moderate, maybe a little left), who were slamming me for buying my dream car, which is an isuzu vehicross. "how could you buy an SUV like that, they are soo horrible for the environment and get such horrible gas mileage." -

My vehicross gets about 23 miles to the gallon, and i drive about 3 miles to work everyday.

they own an old 8 cylinder thunderbird and late 70's early 80's volvo station wagon (V6). and they drive about 50 miles a day each round trip everyday.

This is the same hypcrisy i see from many of the people preaching to the SUV drivers. You do realize there are ALOT of cars and trucks that get just as bad and WORSE gas mileage than many suvs...

maxterpiece
Sep 25, 2005, 07:18 PM
Have you priced a new pickup lately? They are NOT MUCH cheaper unless you are talking a small 2wd stripper compact pickup.

I have a Ford Explorer V6 and I use the 4x4 all the time living in a rural area with little snowplowing and some muddy gravel roads. I also have a small trailer that I have to pull once in awhile. I could have bought a pickup to do the same thing, but why have the empty box following me around all the time?

Pickups are popular everywhere. It is funny to see someone slam SUV's and then give a free pass to pickups. Full sized V8 pickups are hardly fuel efficient. It's not just GM or Ford either, the Nissan Titan and Toyota Tundra are hard on fuel. Even compact trucks (well only the Ford Ranger is still truly a compact) are not that easy on gas.

If you ever checked the sales figures, like I just posted, the most popular vehicle sales wise in the entire world is the Ford F-Series with the GM Silverado/Sierra twins right behind it. Combined sales of Ford/GM/Dodge/Toyota and Nissan is almost 2 million units!!! You can go on all the time about how many more SUV's are out there, but it is not true.

I could have purchased an F150, which you would consider an "Acceptable" vehicle because it is a pickup and not an SUV. However, for my needs the Explorer is smaller, can haul more people, pull my trailer and get better fuel economy with a V6 engine then the V8 in the F150.

Pickups are not glamourous and overdone and marketed towards people who don't need them. As you say, you use your pickup to plow, etc. Most people who buy SUVs buy them because they buy into the whole marketing thing - that SUVs are gangsta or that they are chic, or whatever word you want to use. Can you imagine these same people ever even consider a pickup??? That would probably be the last car that they would ever pick. You bought a car that served your needs. Most SUV buyers buy an SUV because it's cool and it's the in thing. All they are doing is driving around paved roads. They could buy a safer (for other people), more fuel efficient vehicle and get most all the same luxuries.

You are one of the few people who still uses his SUV for what it was originally created for.

StevieG
Sep 25, 2005, 11:17 PM
Pickups are not glamourous and overdone and marketed towards people who don't need them. As you say, you use your pickup to plow, etc. Most people who buy SUVs buy them because they buy into the whole marketing thing - that SUVs are gangsta or that they are chic, or whatever word you want to use. Can you imagine these same people ever even consider a pickup??? That would probably be the last car that they would ever pick. You bought a car that served your needs. Most SUV buyers buy an SUV because it's cool and it's the in thing. All they are doing is driving around paved roads. They could buy a safer (for other people), more fuel efficient vehicle and get most all the same luxuries.

You are one of the few people who still uses his SUV for what it was originally created for.

Maxterpiece, I am amazed at the generalizations and stereotyping in a good many of the responses here. First off, this is America, and folks can and will buy what they want to buy. Secondly, the issue of using any fossil-fuels, whether diesel or gas or propane or methane has an inherent issue to it--the supply is dwindling and finite, period. Do you realize, that a good many of pickup trucks sold in America have leather interiors, navigation systems, and every conceivable option that a Caddy, Mercedes, or Audi might have? That they are marketed just like any other vehicle to buyers who may or may not need them. Does anyone need a $50 Ford F-150 King Ranch 4 door pickup truck with King Ranch leather and that jeweled interior? My Dodge Ram 2500 diesel has just about every luxury option in it. Even has an armrest that will swallow my 17 inch G4 PowerBook and more. It is a "work-truck", has a usable 5.9 L V-6 Cummins Turbodiesel and a 6 speed manual transmission. It cost a lot of money and is worth every dime. It gets good gas mileage for a 3/4 ton diesel truck. Yet, Lincoln makes a luxury pickup truck, so does Caddy. Have you seen a dolled up Nissan Titan lately? Or even a midsize Dodge Dakota, tricked up? Have you seen the prices on these lately, some approaching $50K?
I have owned 3 suvs, a 1997 Explorer with V-6, a 1998 Dodge Durango with 5.9L V-8, and my current one for weekend getaways, a 2002 GMC Denali XL that has a 6.0L V-8. It is everything I want it to be, just not a commuter car. It gets excellent gas mileage for its size and class, often 19-20 highway at 60-65 mph.
My point is, making sterotypical statements and gross over-generalizations is counterproductive and makes the casual observer here like me think that the flow of information here is suspect. Yeah, it would be nice to have a 90 mpg 6500 lb vehicle for towing or hauling people, but it is not going to happen with the internal combustion engine as we know it. I just think a lot of opinion has been thrown out here, without fact and without understanding of all the cultural issues at play in the US regarding what type of vehicle we all drive.

BTW, I purchased my Denali XL(i.e. Suburban clone) in 2001 as a 2002 model. It has been amazingly reliable, efficient, and despite its size, with 2 large dogs, 2 children, a wife and a husband along with all our weekend gear,it routinely delivers 16-19 combined mpg on those long weekends. I personally, would not buy any other class of vehicle for these needs. And I could care less about the "gansta" culture, or "suburban" culture.

quagmire
Sep 25, 2005, 11:35 PM
I agree with you Stevie. I have a 2002 Chevy Suburban( also bought in 2001). It has gotten amazing fuel economy for that size of the vehicle. GM is right on saying they got the most fuel efficient full sizers in their class with V8's. I went on a road trip to New York and it got 18 MPG highway. That is right on the EPA estimate. I can't say about City driving since I mainly use it for highway and long trips( it is very comfartable). I also use it to tow horse trailers. I also had a 1996 Chevy Suburban which got traded in for my current one. The '96 had no problems what so ever to warranty the trade in. I just decided to take advantage of the good deals post-9/11. It is the same story with the current Suburban. No problems at all.

cr2sh
Sep 26, 2005, 07:27 AM
I'm confident we can stop the "I get this many mpg. I don't drive far. I'm not a bad person. I'm not a bad person. Look at this guy.. he is evil!" posts.

We make ourselves feel better but pointing out some one else's flaw. Trying our best to raise the low end.

I saw a commercial for the new hybrid civic yesterday.

"50 mpg" the commercial boasted. My girlfriend's 2001 non-hybrid civic gets 40mpg. I'm sorry. That's not much of an improvement. At all.

A company we hold up and point out and say... these guys got it right.

And they get only 10mpg more.

It's a joke. Hybrids are not the answer... we're all doing what we've always done and batteries are not solving the problem for us.

And in the end, they're completelly unrelated fields. The folks who buy a ford f250, aren't going to buy a civic hybrid. So we haven't changed anything, much. Why, with the anti-SUV, 20-something, american mindset... isn't there a solution for 12mpg vehicles?

superfunkomatic
Sep 26, 2005, 08:29 AM
anyone remember the 1970s?
fuel shortages, rising fuel prices, large behemoth muscle cars and huge v8 family cars.
didn't learn anything the first time?
sad to see huge flagging/failing organizations like chev and ford spending money releasing new inefficient vehicles. do you really need a 400 hp V8 motor to pick the kids up after school? i'm guessing not.

Chip NoVaMac
Sep 26, 2005, 10:30 AM
I also think it's funny all the people who are slamming SUV's only... I mean really. Pilot VS F150 V8 or a Cadillac V8 (car)... come one.. you guys are suffering from what is called displacement. I agree the LARGE SUV market is overpopular right now for sure with college students and housemoms and small penis business men, but the platform altogether DOES have its place.

Looking at Cadillac, your example is a bit off perhaps. Comparing the Escalade to the DeVille, the DeVille delivers 6mpg better highway (although only 2mpg better city), both with V8's.

Thanks to the wonderful regulatory process, these SUV's do not have to meet the same standards as regular passenger cars. Add to that we are delayed at red lights, because some big SUV's drivers decided to have an "edge" on the change of the light - blocking our view, so we can't safely make a right-on-red turn.

The issue that some of have with the larger SUV's are beyond the the MPG ratings. We suffer door dings from these that think their Expeditions are compact vehicles and park in spaces clearly marked for compacts. The safety concerns on the growing number of "outsized" vehicles sharing the road with the rest of us.

My vehicross gets about 23 miles to the gallon, and i drive about 3 miles to work everyday.

they own an old 8 cylinder thunderbird and late 70's early 80's volvo station wagon (V6). and they drive about 50 miles a day each round trip everyday.

This is the same hypcrisy i see from many of the people preaching to the SUV drivers. You do realize there are ALOT of cars and trucks that get just as bad and WORSE gas mileage than many suvs...

Yes, but those number I think dwarf the numbers of the newer SUV's. I think you are pointing out the greater divide in this nation of those that have, and those that have been left behind. We have become a nation of excess. Just look at our desire for bigger and faster cars. Look at desire for not the 1,500 to 2,00 sq. foot homes; but 2,500 to 5,000 sq. foot monsters.

Chip NoVaMac
Sep 26, 2005, 10:32 AM
Pickups are not glamourous and overdone and marketed towards people who don't need them. As you say, you use your pickup to plow, etc. Most people who buy SUVs buy them because they buy into the whole marketing thing - that SUVs are gangsta or that they are chic, or whatever word you want to use. Can you imagine these same people ever even consider a pickup??? That would probably be the last car that they would ever pick. You bought a car that served your needs. Most SUV buyers buy an SUV because it's cool and it's the in thing. All they are doing is driving around paved roads. They could buy a safer (for other people), more fuel efficient vehicle and get most all the same luxuries.

You are one of the few people who still uses his SUV for what it was originally created for.

Amen, but even if they wanted the utility of a pick-up truck, there is the likes of my Subaru Baja.

StevieG
Sep 26, 2005, 10:35 AM
anyone remember the 1970s?
fuel shortages, rising fuel prices, large behemoth muscle cars and huge v8 family cars.
didn't learn anything the first time?
sad to see huge flagging/failing organizations like chev and ford spending money releasing new inefficient vehicles. do you really need a 400 hp V8 motor to pick the kids up after school? i'm guessing not.

So Toyota, Nissan, Audi, BMW, and Mercedes don't make huge gas guzzling vehicles with hulking V-8s? Where have you been burying your head in the sand? Really, Toyota's Tundra pickup with the commonly-ordered I-Force 4.7L V-8 is one of the most inefficient of the full sized pickups. Ditto the big engined Titan V-8. Look at the Lexus, Infiniti, Toyota, and Nissan SUVs and compare them to Chevy, Ford, GMC, and Dodge.
I think the arguments here are sterotypical, arrogant, and not well-researched opinion. That is about it. As for Ford and Chevy and their making big gas guzzling vehicles, we as American consumers and materialistic individuals are just as responsible for the state of affairs as any manufacturer. You don't like what they offer, don't buy it. You don't like the fact that someone of your neighbors drives a 10 mpg suv or pickup, tooi bad. It is their money and their choice. With the logic here, we should all ride bicycles everyday, or mopeds, or nuclear powered skate-boards to work and disregard all other forms of transportation, including airplanes, buses, the ubiquitous 18 wheelers on the road, and the like. You sound like a lot of the talking heads on TV, the celebrities with the look-at-me-I-drive-a-hybrid-Prius set. Essentially, the waste more fossil fuel traveling from venue to venue in their limos and private jets in one weekend, than you and I will driving a 10 mpg suv over a lifetime of ownership. Go figure

superfunkomatic
Sep 26, 2005, 10:45 AM
I think the arguments here are sterotypical, arrogant, and not well-researched opinion.
read the post, it's a chevy vehicle. and yes, other manufacturers do make fuel-inefficient vehicles - you are correct. but even the nissan titan gets better gas mileage than the american SUVs and pickups - those figures are available from the sites.

and i, like many others, have chosen to not buy them for many reasons outside of fuel efficiency - including lack of style, modern features, design flaws and safety.

my comments are about consumer behavior. north americans consume, that's what we are good at. we use copious amounts of resources, often when we don't need to - example large vehicles. i was simply making a point that maybe people should reevaluate their behavior when resources are expensive or scarce. frankly, i'd rather spend money on other things than gasoline - movie tickets, beer, food, etc. but you're free to drive what you like and make that choice for yourself. be informed.

edit: also thanx for the nod to fame, i wish i was so lucky. and yes, i do drive fuel efficient vehicles - a toyota echo (50 MPG in the city), and a l'il mazda truck for weekend work (30 MPG)

SharksFan22
Sep 26, 2005, 10:59 AM
Thanks to the wonderful regulatory process, these SUV's do not have to meet the same standards as regular passenger cars. Add to that we are delayed at red lights, because some big SUV's drivers decided to have an "edge" on the change of the light - blocking our view, so we can't safely make a right-on-red turn.


Oh yeah, I forgot about that. They don't conform to the same passenger safety laws. But, wrt to "edge" well, from my perspective in a low, sports car, just about every car on the market does this, including Subarus. :-)


The issue that some of have with the larger SUV's are beyond the the MPG ratings. We suffer door dings from these that think their Expeditions are compact vehicles and park in spaces clearly marked for compacts. The safety concerns on the growing number of "outsized" vehicles sharing the road with the rest of us.


I have to say, I'm a little on the fence on this one. On one hand, I get very annoyed when I'm in a parking lot where all the spots are marked as compact so I can understand a large SUV owner giving up and jamming their car in a compact spot. On the other hand, I'll agree that it's a major pain to try to squeeze into the car when a non-compact vehicle is parked next to me into a compact spot. My solution -- I'm a nut about keeping my cars in excellent condition and I park at the far end of the lot. And no, I don't advocate taking up two spaces. Ever. And, I've seen compact cars deliver door dings just as nasty as SUVs. :-) Be careful with your generalizations.

I'm more concerned about 18-wheelers running me over than I am a Chevy Tahoe.


Yes, but those number I think dwarf the numbers of the newer SUV's. I think you are pointing out the greater divide in this nation of those that have, and those that have been left behind. We have become a nation of excess. Just look at our desire for bigger and faster cars. Look at desire for not the 1,500 to 2,00 sq. foot homes; but 2,500 to 5,000 sq. foot monsters.

Huh? While I'm not a fan of the giant homes (I've owned homes in both those categories and am now in a smaller one) who ever said that there's a guaranteed equal outcome in life? Is that what this is *really* about? Class envy? So someone has had enough financial success in life that they can purchase a $60K SUV that gets poor mileage. So what? They pay through the nose at the pump so it's not like they're not continuing to spend money for their purchase. Plus, if we take a two-year view of it, what do you think the resale market for these vehicles will be? My suspiscion (sp?) is that the person buying that vehicle today will get absolutely bloodied in depreciation. There are also people who will never afford anything newer or nicer than a four-year-old used car.

Respectfully, I support a person's right to choose their own vehicle, house, partner, etc. -- that's part of what makes our country great! The absolute LAST thing I want is the same result for everyone. Chip - You're a self-professed Subaru fan and that's great for you as I'm sure their vehicles fit your criteria. I have nothing against Subarus but they're not on my shopping list as I think they're some of the oddest, strangest cars on the market and they don't fit my needs. But, just cause they're not for me doesn't mean I'm against them.....

Chip NoVaMac
Sep 26, 2005, 12:43 PM
Oh yeah, I forgot about that. They don't conform to the same passenger safety laws. But, wrt to "edge" well, from my perspective in a low, sports car, just about every car on the market does this, including Subarus. :-)

As to the "edge", it much easier to see oncoming traffice if it were a passenger vehicle, than an SUV. Even I hope, with something like my Baja.

I have to say, I'm a little on the fence on this one. On one hand, I get very annoyed when I'm in a parking lot where all the spots are marked as compact so I can understand a large SUV owner giving up and jamming their car in a compact spot. On the other hand, I'll agree that it's a major pain to try to squeeze into the car when a non-compact vehicle is parked next to me into a compact spot. My solution -- I'm a nut about keeping my cars in excellent condition and I park at the far end of the lot. And no, I don't advocate taking up two spaces. Ever. And, I've seen compact cars deliver door dings just as nasty as SUVs. :-) Be careful with your generalizations.[/quote}

First, it should not be about "giving up". It is about respect. And dare I say say there is less respect among those that have , than those that have not in some cases. Even when I was given a "full-size" car, never did I think twice about parking in a compact space.

I will be honest my opinions are driven by living in the DC area (a great anomaly, as far as the rest of the nation goes). The King of the "I've got mine, so WTF about you". I had a woman with an Expedition park in a compact space next to mine, and when she opened her door - it was with a good thud. Her comment? "well, I am in a hurry, but it is not like that that ding really matters to you".

Yes. compact cars can deliver good dings. But in the end it is about respect for your fellow human being. More and more in areas like mine, we are seeing those with the money, look down upon those with out the money (FYI, I live in Fairfax County Virginia, one of the highest cost, highest disposable income areas in the US).

As an example, look at those that have died. I was taught i my early years that one would either stand at the curb, or get out of their car and stand tat the curb, as the procession went by. Now we have to have police at each light, in order to have safe passage.

So the questions begs, why should I as a compact vehicle owner go out of my way to accommodate those that have little regard for the laws and rules of this land?

[quote]I'm more concerned about 18-wheelers running me over than I am a Chevy Tahoe.

So am I. But that is a post for the PF here.

Huh? While I'm not a fan of the giant homes (I've owned homes in both those categories and am now in a smaller one) who ever said that there's a guaranteed equal outcome in life? Is that what this is *really* about? Class envy? So someone has had enough financial success in life that they can purchase a $60K SUV that gets poor mileage. So what? They pay through the nose at the pump so it's not like they're not continuing to spend money for their purchase. Plus, if we take a two-year view of it, what do you think the resale market for these vehicles will be? My suspiscion (sp?) is that the person buying that vehicle today will get absolutely bloodied in depreciation. There are also people who will never afford anything newer or nicer than a four-year-old used car.

Respectfully, I support a person's right to choose their own vehicle, house, partner, etc. -- that's part of what makes our country great! The absolute LAST thing I want is the same result for everyone. Chip - You're a self-professed Subaru fan and that's great for you as I'm sure their vehicles fit your criteria. I have nothing against Subarus but they're not on my shopping list as I think they're some of the oddest, strangest cars on the market and they don't fit my needs. But, just cause they're not for me doesn't mean I'm against them.....

It has some to do with class envy. Again looking at the DC area. But when you have those building McMansions (2,500+ sf) in neighborhoods of homes that are under 2,000 sf. You have to look at the historical perspective also. Many, even the "rich" folk, were happy with their under 2.5000 sf homes. But as we have changed as a nation, the quality of life and expectations has changed

I even fell prey to that thinking when moving from my 1.200 sf TH to my 800 sf apartment *(one bedroom). In a few years if I move, I am now better able to maybe consider a 600 sf apartment.

Not to take this to the PF here, but I know that I have been left behind under Reagan and Bush I, and I was lifted up during Clinton, and now have fallen behind under Bush II.

It is not class envy on my part. I have accepted my lot in life (it may not be a lot, but is a life - thanks to the "Bug's Life" for that quote). I am not looking to get a 2,000+ sf house or a car that I can afford at half of the median income here. What I am looking for is acceptance like in my parents home town in my youth, that each person and contribution had value.

It meant a lot to me when an owner and customer mine that just purchased a Hummer congratulated me on my purchase of my Baja. Or when a customer of mine that knew I owned a TH, and then found out that I had to sell, and heard about my new apartment gave me words of encouragement and and support.

In the DC area, these positives are far and few between. Hell, some of these folks don't want the teachers, policemen, and firefighters to live amongst them in "affordable" housing set asides. Never mind those that "serve" them in retail. I guess we can afford to live in WV and pay $3 to get to work.

Before you get the idea that I want a "handout". No I don't. I just remember a time that has long past that rich and poor had a respect of each other. I remember when my Dad bought his Oldsmobile at about the same time as a neighbor bought their Cadillac. It was a great time for both .

But never did we see people buying "regular" homes, only to building something that might be twice the size and out out of character for the community.

quagmire
Sep 26, 2005, 02:01 PM
read the post, it's a chevy vehicle. and yes, other manufacturers do make fuel-inefficient vehicles - you are correct. but even the nissan titan gets better gas mileage than the american SUVs and pickups - those figures are available from the sites.

and i, like many others, have chosen to not buy them for many reasons outside of fuel efficiency - including lack of style, modern features, design flaws and safety.

my comments are about consumer behavior. north americans consume, that's what we are good at. we use copious amounts of resources, often when we don't need to - example large vehicles. i was simply making a point that maybe people should reevaluate their behavior when resources are expensive or scarce. frankly, i'd rather spend money on other things than gasoline - movie tickets, beer, food, etc. but you're free to drive what you like and make that choice for yourself. be informed.

edit: also thanx for the nod to fame, i wish i was so lucky. and yes, i do drive fuel efficient vehicles - a toyota echo (50 MPG in the city), and a l'il mazda truck for weekend work (30 MPG)

Chevy Tahoe Vortec 5300 V8 4x4 : 15/19
Nissan Armada V8 4x4: 13/18
Toyota Sequoia V8: 15/17

Toyota Tacoma 4 banger: 21/26
Toyota Tacoma V6: N/A( that is right from the site)
Nissan Frontier: 15/20
Chevy Colorado 4 banger: 20/27
Chevy Colorado 5 banger: 17/22

Nissan Titan:14/18
Chevy Silverado Vortec 5300 V8: 15/18
Toyota Tundra V8: 16/18

Right from the sites. There pretty much close with each other in fuel economy. GM and Ford are very reliable in their trucks/SUV's( and their cars). So end it with that arguement.

KillerV
Sep 26, 2005, 07:25 PM
I like it,I like it a lot.Its looked The same for over 15 years and you guys are complaining that it looks like the old one?I think GM did a great job on this.It looks bold and mean.Its better looking than that of many foreign SUV's that look alike.We'll just have to wait til the first quarter of 2006 when it comes out to see how it drives,handles,and the power.with an top offering of a 6.3l with 400 horsepower,we should be impressed.Back to styleing,I love what they did with the interior.These trucks were in desperate need of a new interior and it looks like it was worth the wait,they look great.Foreign interiors have way to many buttons and controls,all which can become confusing and,well,an all around pain in the ass.Thats something that I wouldnt want to deal with.Being a big guy(6'5",260) I like the huge armrest and wide seats.It looks like there plenty of head and leg space too.
You complain about fuel economy.Im willing to bet that this line of GM SUV's will be better in fuel economy than the foreigners in there class.Have you guys ever heard of Displacement of Demand(DOD) or the 8-6-4 system?These engines feature DOD.The engines are designed to shut down cylinders,as much as 4,when the power is not needed.For example,this is great for city driving.This greatly improves fuel economy.I am not worried about fuel economy with these.

cheekyspanky
Sep 26, 2005, 07:57 PM
Its better looking than that of many foreign SUV's that look alike.. ..Foreign interiors have way to many buttons and controls,all which can become confusing and,well,an all around pain in the ass.... ...Im willing to bet that this line of GM SUV's will be better in fuel economy than the foreigners in there class...

Just because something is foreign doesn't make it bad :)

Unless you pay for satellite navigation/in dash televisions etc then there is a limit to how many buttons can serve a purpose on a dashboard. I'm pretty sure if you did a comparison the number of buttons on US and "Foreign" SUV's and cars would be very similar.

This Tahoe has on the drivers door alone, 9 buttons, with 16 different ways to press them..talk about confusing and being a pain in the ass! :p

Chances are this model will be slightly more fuel efficient than models from other manufacturers developed several years ago. That wouldn't really be unexpected. Overall though it'll still be less fuel efficient than most other cars on the road - especially when compared to those "foreign" ones.

(The 5.3L V-8s boast Displacement On Demand cylinder-deactivation technology, giving the 320-hp engines the ability to achieve a 20.5 mpg combined EPA rating, based on preliminary tests. The 6.0L heavy-duty engines boast 350- and 355-hp, with the top aluminum-block 6.2L touting variable-valve timing ranging from 380 to 400 horsepower, dependent on application. http://motortrend.com/roadtests/suv/112_0509_chevy_tahoe/index1.html)

StevieG
Sep 26, 2005, 09:07 PM
Chevy Tahoe Vortec 5300 V8 4x4 : 15/19
Nissan Armada V8 4x4: 13/18
Toyota Sequoia V8: 15/17

Toyota Tacoma 4 banger: 21/26
Toyota Tacoma V6: N/A( that is right from the site)
Nissan Frontier: 15/20
Chevy Colorado 4 banger: 20/27
Chevy Colorado 5 banger: 17/22

Nissan Titan:14/18
Chevy Silverado Vortec 5300 V8: 15/18
Toyota Tundra V8: 16/18

Right from the sites. There pretty much close with each other in fuel economy. GM and Ford are very reliable in their trucks/SUV's( and their cars). So end it with that arguement.

Hate to rain on anyones parade, but while these mpg numbers are about the same for import vs domestic, try towing with the Tundra or Titan and see what you get. I have REAL WORLD experience towing with a lot of different pickups and suvs, and it ain't close. The I-Force V-8 in the Tundra runs completely out of steam towing and consumes gas like Oprah consumes calories when she ain't dieting. Ditto the Titan. BTW, the Titan and Armada share the same drivetrain. The Armada and its Infiniti QX56 cousin are considered major gashogs. Don't believe me, drive one. Seems to me, GM, Ford and the domestics in general take a beating on the gas mileage and environmentally friendly image. This is largely a misperception more than anything. Yet, when you crunch numbers, there is a reason the Japanese are diving into the large, full size pickup truck and suv fray. It is called profit, and WE CONSUMERS and our as yet unquenched thirst for the larger, bigger, more powerful cars and trucks are driving this. Don't therefore blame the manufacturer, and please, don't blame the single mom or dad driving their kids to school in a 'Burban or Excursion. Blame if anything, all the social and cultural factors that have given Americans and "America" in general, its worldwide stigma of excesses, waste, materialism, and yes, Hollywood elitism. Factor those into the equation. Why else would the Hummer H1, then H2 be huge sales successes despite their outdated appearances and lack of any new technology.

maxterpiece
Sep 26, 2005, 11:25 PM
Hate to rain on anyones parade, but while these mpg numbers are about the same for import vs domestic, try towing with the Tundra or Titan and see what you get. I have REAL WORLD experience towing with a lot of different pickups and suvs, and it ain't close. The I-Force V-8 in the Tundra runs completely out of steam towing and consumes gas like Oprah consumes calories when she ain't dieting. Ditto the Titan. BTW, the Titan and Armada share the same drivetrain. The Armada and its Infiniti QX56 cousin are considered major gashogs. Don't believe me, drive one. Seems to me, GM, Ford and the domestics in general take a beating on the gas mileage and environmentally friendly image. This is largely a misperception more than anything. Yet, when you crunch numbers, there is a reason the Japanese are diving into the large, full size pickup truck and suv fray. It is called profit, and WE CONSUMERS and our as yet unquenched thirst for the larger, bigger, more powerful cars and trucks are driving this. Don't therefore blame the manufacturer, and please, don't blame the single mom or dad driving their kids to school in a 'Burban or Excursion. Blame if anything, all the social and cultural factors that have given Americans and "America" in general, its worldwide stigma of excesses, waste, materialism, and yes, Hollywood elitism. Factor those into the equation. Why else would the Hummer H1, then H2 be huge sales successes despite their outdated appearances and lack of any new technology.

Well actually you could look at it the other way around. Companies want to sell more expensive and bigger things so they push the mentality that more and bigger is better and that the only way to be happy is to have more.

It's a very complex issue, but the main thing that is keeping it the way it is is greed and the fact that it is just easier to make something that is wilder and more extreme than what has been done before, but it's not easy to innovate and be original. So SUVs are popular because they are big? Well God-damn we better make a bigger one: and thus the H2 is born... Instead of: SUVs are popular because the make people feel safe and comfortable? Well let's figure out a way to make people feel safe and comfortable without making such a huge oil-devouring beast of a vehicle. The second is a little more abstract. It's harder to figure out whether it will be successful and it's harder to market because you have to convince people to try something new.

The same bull applies to hollywood movies: why give money to someone trying to make a creative and original movie when we don't know how succcesful it will be. Better to just make the same BS and drop a couple of million into newer and more realistic special effects, or into buying that actor that is in every other movie.

And as a result, american people act out these extremes by killing each other all the time then going home and watching "reality" TV.

America is the heart of the capitalism and thus it is the heart of all the BS and the good that goes along with it.

KillerV
Sep 27, 2005, 06:33 AM
Just because something is foreign doesn't make it bad.Unless you pay for satellite navigation/in dash televisions etc then there is a limit to how many buttons can serve a purpose on a dashboard. I'm pretty sure if you did a comparison the number of buttons on US and "Foreign" SUV's and cars would be very similar.

This Tahoe has on the drivers door alone, 9 buttons, with 16 different ways to press them..talk about confusing and being a pain in the ass!

Chances are this model will be slightly more fuel efficient than models from other manufacturers developed several years ago. That wouldn't really be unexpected. Overall though it'll still be less fuel efficient than most other cars on the road - especially when compared to those "foreign" ones.

(The 5.3L V-8s boast Displacement On Demand cylinder-deactivation technology, giving the 320-hp engines the ability to achieve a 20.5 mpg combined EPA rating, based on preliminary tests. The 6.0L heavy-duty engines boast 350- and 355-hp, with the top aluminum-block 6.2L touting variable-valve timing ranging from 380 to 400 horsepower, dependent on application.

I never said foreign cars were bad,infact,I like many foreign vehicles.Im just comparing.But Im talking about the Land Rover and X5 on the first page.Especially the Land Rover.Being in one of those you'd feel like you were in a airplane cockpit.Too many buttons and controls,even the steering wheel is over crowded.Now a real nice interior to comment about is that of the Subaru B9 Trebeca.Thats a sharp interior that wraps around you.And the dash isn't overcrowded.The exterior though is a different story.And the Tahoe has the basics on the door that a Cadillac had 15 years ago,power windows,door locks,window locks,mirrors,and memory seat.Simple stuff.

We'll just have to wait and see the fuel economy.I'd imagine that shutting down 4 cylinders in town is going to save a lot of gas.But like other people have said, full size SUV's are terrible on gas.And foreign full size's aren't any better enough to comment about.I can say that along with them because I travel and rent.While no 6,000 pound SUV is going to get the fuel economy of a family sedan,this GM line will be better on gas then their foreign competitors.

KillerV
Sep 28, 2005, 09:53 PM
z

reberto
Sep 28, 2005, 10:04 PM
z

!?!?

quagmire
Oct 4, 2005, 11:15 PM
Today is now October 5th. The new GMC Yukon and Yukon Denali have been unveiled.

http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/...ed=1#post365173

Enjoy!

Info

http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/...?threadid=20704

Chip NoVaMac
Oct 5, 2005, 10:42 PM
Today is now October 5th. The new GMC Yukon and Yukon Denali have been unveiled.

http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/...ed=1#post365173

Enjoy!

Info

http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/...?threadid=20704

In the end it is sad that "Detroit" has fought serious efforts to raise the CAFE milage over the last 20+ years. They have only recently reacted to demands due to the rise in public anger. Most other industrialized nations have made greater strides in raising MPG figures; while we have allowed lobbyist's here in the US to have their way.

AZGINBOGA
Oct 13, 2005, 06:41 PM
nice...

alex_ant
Oct 13, 2005, 08:13 PM
Couldn't thet get better mileage out of these things if they just converted the engine to run directly on the blood of dead Iraqis? Laws of thermodynamics and all, why not cut out the petroleum middleman.

quagmire
Oct 13, 2005, 09:59 PM
Couldn't thet get better mileage out of these things if they just converted the engine to run directly on the blood of dead Iraqis? Laws of thermodynamics and all, why not cut out the petroleum middleman.

Dude, that isn't funny.

maxterpiece
Oct 13, 2005, 10:43 PM
Wow, thought this thread was dead. Since it has resurfaced I feel obliged to respond.

Maxterpiece, I am amazed at the generalizations and stereotyping in a good many of the responses here.
Is it not the job of a sociologist to make generalizations? You look at a population and study the trends in that populations. Every individual is different, there is no denying that, but trends are trends, and whether or not your vehicle fits into a category of which I am noting a trend in does not necessarily reflect on who you are and on what your intentions are with that vehicle. Don't take it personally!

First off, this is America, and folks can and will buy what they want to buy.

TRUE!!! No one can argue this. Buy what you want! Use your money however your heart desires! The fact remains that the divide between rich and poor grows larger every day. The fact remains that I have a right to express my concern over dwindling resources. The fact remains that the government has an obligation to be proactive about the future of our country, our people and our planet. The government has an obligation to be proactive and to tax the s*** out of these vehicles to cover the costs they will eventually leave our children to pay for the AVOIDABLE environmental damage that their popularity causes and for the danger these vehicles pose to those who choose not to buy them!

Secondly, the issue of using any fossil-fuels, whether diesel or gas or propane or methane has an inherent issue to it--the supply is dwindling and finite, period. Do you realize, that a good many of pickup trucks sold in America have leather interiors, navigation systems, and every conceivable option that a Caddy, Mercedes, or Audi might have? That they are marketed just like any other vehicle to buyers who may or may not need them. Does anyone need a $50 Ford F-150 King Ranch 4 door pickup truck with King Ranch leather and that jeweled interior?

I have searched for over an hour trying to find a website that gives sales statistics of all vehicles sold in the US. I was unable to find one, but I think I can confidently say that these luxury pickups are 1) not sold in nearly the quantity that the all these big SUVs are selling for. Why else would it be that I see about 100 advertisements for big SUVs to every advertisement for a luxury pick-up... Why else is it that over the last 5 or so years, every car company has released and expanded it's SUV lineup? It's because that's where the money is!

My Dodge Ram 2500 diesel has just about every luxury option in it. Even has an armrest that will swallow my 17 inch G4 PowerBook and more. It is a "work-truck", has a usable 5.9 L V-6 Cummins Turbodiesel and a 6 speed manual transmission. It cost a lot of money and is worth every dime. It gets good gas mileage for a 3/4 ton diesel truck. Yet, Lincoln makes a luxury pickup truck, so does Caddy. Have you seen a dolled up Nissan Titan lately? Or even a midsize Dodge Dakota, tricked up? Have you seen the prices on these lately, some approaching $50K?
I have owned 3 suvs, a 1997 Explorer with V-6, a 1998 Dodge Durango with 5.9L V-8, and my current one for weekend getaways, a 2002 GMC Denali XL that has a 6.0L V-8. It is everything I want it to be, just not a commuter car. It gets excellent gas mileage for its size and class, often 19-20 highway at 60-65 mph.
If you paid 20k more for your gas guzzler and we all paid 50% more taxes on our gas to cover the costs of researching new fuel sources and transforming, I think you might be willing to sacrifice the luxury of your SUV for something more economical. Then again, you're right - 19-20mpg on the highway is decent. Maybe this tax wouldn't apply to your car. I'm not concerned with you though - I'm concerned with the general trend in our country changing. Adding 20k to the cost of gas guzzlers and making fuel cost an additional $2k/year will makea lot more people reconsider before investing in a status symbol. Money talks louder to people than ethics and logic. Look at europe - gas costs about 50% more there and, although there are still SUVs there on the scale of a pathfinder, there are no monster Expeditions or Escalades, and most of the commuter cars get 20%+ better gas mileage. People drive diesel and hybrid cars. People sacrifice the glamor, even though it is still available to them (I'm not advocating taking people's choice away!), and go with what is truly more practical.
And finally, i don't consider it a gas guzzler just because it is below a certain threshold in gas mileage. I consider it a gas guzzler if it is below that threshold and is clearly marketed as a personal use/luxury car and not a work vehicle that requires a more powerful engine.
My point is, making sterotypical statements and gross over-generalizations is counterproductive and makes the casual observer here like me think that the flow of information here is suspect. Yeah, it would be nice to have a 90 mpg 6500 lb vehicle for towing or hauling people, but it is not going to happen with the internal combustion engine as we know it. I just think a lot of opinion has been thrown out here, without fact and without understanding of all the cultural issues at play in the US regarding what type of vehicle we all drive.
The main cultural issue at play here is that US citizens think we are invincible. We think we can get away with whatever we want. There has never been a war on our soil (not counting rev. war and civil war). We have always been safely isolated by two huge oceans. Well, with technology today, oceans don't protect us so much anymore and that isolation isn't real. We think that the more wasteful we are, the cooler we are. Well that's not gonna cut it. Energy crisis is looming and it's gonna smack us down to earth really quickly if we don't start weening ourselves. I think if you look at a lot of the US foreign policy today you see it is similar to that of someone falling from a dreamworld and scratching with all its power to maintain that illusion.
It would be wonderful to have a 90mpg 6500lb vehicle. That is true. With the tax money we could be charging that vehicle may be possible.

BTW, I purchased my Denali XL(i.e. Suburban clone) in 2001 as a 2002 model. It has been amazingly reliable, efficient, and despite its size, with 2 large dogs, 2 children, a wife and a husband along with all our weekend gear,it routinely delivers 16-19 combined mpg on those long weekends. I personally, would not buy any other class of vehicle for these needs. And I could care less about the "gansta" culture, or "suburban" culture.
I'm glad you have a car that is reliable and fits your needs. I wasn't trying to put you in a box or classify you as a bad person. I hope your Denali lasts you a long time and serves your family well.

Chip NoVaMac
Oct 13, 2005, 11:38 PM
I'm glad you have a car that is reliable and fits your needs. I wasn't trying to put you in a box or classify you as a bad person. I hope your Denali lasts you a long time and serves your family well.

In the end that poster could have served their family needs, and been a better friend to the growing use of fuel and the environment, if they would have gone to one of the mini-vans. Even more so if Detroit did not have their hands in the pockets of Congress, and mini-vans were exempt from many rules that would have made them liable for car CAFE requirements.

Over the last five to ten years we have allowed the "greed" of the US to rule over over National and World interests. Bigger and faster seem to have over ruled common sense.

Car manufactures have the ability to play with gear ratios in order to get better MPG. But that comes at a price of performance. Add to that we re growing even more in to a nation of the haves and haves not's. For if we mandate that seat belts and airbags be in every vehicle - then pray tell why don't we mandate maximum engine and vehicle size? As well as MPG/CAFE ratings?

skoker
Oct 15, 2005, 08:28 AM
Hey! Let's put a DVD player right where the driver can see it!










Oh geez, wonder why he crashed?

hookahco
Oct 15, 2005, 02:06 PM
i was born in the USA and ive lived all my life here and in my short (18 year old) life ive spent time in europe and the middle east (the good part) and i have to say.. american culture makes me sick. no offense to any pure blooded americans, its your life. this is a free country built on the notion that every man can live the way he wants to and as long as you dont harm others, do whatever you want. but honestly, does a 5'5" mom need a chevy suburban to drop her 2 or 3 kids off at school? why cant americans seem to design something nice? look at american designed clothing then go look at italian or french designs. theres no comparing. its quite sad.. all the resources we have and we cant do anything decent. by the way.. i live in the capital of gluttony.. Los Angeles, California. i can promise you that i see at least 50 new suburbans and tahoes every day and theyre mostly driven by short woman.. when i see them next to me i get the hell away for fear of my life. its not that im sexist.. its just common sense.. im tall (6'2") and a very very good driver and when i drive an suv i can barely see normally so how can they see anything??? its really amazing.
</rant> im so sick of the trash around me its really really sad and disturbing.. nobody appreciates anything anymore.

Jon'sLightBulbs
Oct 15, 2005, 08:19 PM
<rant>
</rant>

I'm no SUV apologist, but what's wrong with an under 6 ft. mother driving her kids to school in a Sequoia or an Explorer? The visibility in an SUV is better than in a passenger car. Your higher line of sight enables you to see further down the road, and the pillars usually aren't as encumbering.

Would you like that family to travel in a little Citroen or Fiat? I mean, let's be objective here. When you saw those familes of 5 and 6 in Europe traveling around in little 2 door Seats or Renaults, did they look comfortable?

No.

Chip NoVaMac
Oct 15, 2005, 08:58 PM
I'm no SUV apologist, but what's wrong with an under 6 ft. mother driving her kids to school in a Sequoia or an Explorer? The visibility in an SUV is better than in a passenger car. Your higher line of sight enables you to see further down the road, and the pillars usually aren't as encumbering.

Would you like that family to travel in a little Citroen or Fiat? I mean, let's be objective here. When you saw those familes of 5 and 6 in Europe traveling around in little 2 door Seats or Renaults, did they look comfortable?

No.

Yes, visibility is better for her - but what about the rest of us? I think that LA is much like the DC area with a much greater portion of the vehicles on the road blocking the view for others that can not afford the hit on MPG ratings.

Comfort is relative. These same folks could find comfort as I did as a child in a Ford Country Squire Wagon, and get better MPG to boot. What you are missing from hookahco's post is the concept of greed is good that we now have here in the US.

As long as we can justify our motives, then all is good. I have kids and I need the hauling and safety of an oversized SUV. I have a four person household, and need a 4,00o sq ft home for us. Never mind that for 20 to 40 years in that same neighborhood, families were able to live well in 2,000 sq ft with the same number of children or more. Never mind higher density housing in order for "moderate" income people to afford a place to live, "I just don't want them living close to me". The rallying against day worker sites - people want cheap labor to build their McMansions, and to clean these same homes. I guess as long as they can afford filling up their Hummers then all is good. Forget the rest of us that are the backbone for their good life.

Jon'sLightBulbs
Oct 15, 2005, 11:31 PM
As long as we can justify our motives, then all is good.... Forget the rest of us that are the backbone for their good life.

I assume that every statement in that last paragraph was in jest. Which is good.

But I think the greed aspect is fine. Every family has its own rational motivations. Each should do what benefits its own interests. Are you suggesting that there should be only one class in the US - a huge middle class - with nobody wealthier, and that we should all share our resources? So everyone should be equal, right.

PBGPowerbook
Oct 15, 2005, 11:58 PM
ABSOLUTELY HIDEOUS!!!!

Try a Volvo V70R or Audi RS4

maxvamp
Oct 16, 2005, 10:59 AM
Folks,

It does not help when the US has a President so far in the Oil company's pockets that when he sticks his finger in the air to see which way the wind blows, he also can check their rectal temperature.

It doesn't help when he is lowering the CAFE standards, and the EPA standards either.

There are technologies that are far simpler and less expensive than hybrid what would reduce America's consumption of oil. Killing the SUV is not the answer. I personally think there are too many on the road, but the dollars spent on them are not mine.

We should be promoting E-89, the 89% ethanol blend of gasoline, and BioDiesel more. The car manufacturers should be making vehicles optimized to run on these fuels in their purest forms. Only minor tweaks are needed to an engine to run these. No electric engines, no batteries, etc.
Second, the government should be giving noticeable tax breaks to the consumer for using this stuff ( no corporate welfare here Mr. Bush ).

I have been using BioDiesel for a long time now, and I was surprised to see that last time I filled up my TDi Jetta, that Bio was cheaper than Petroleum. Problem is, Bio doesn't like to run as well in more than a 20% blend in standard Diesel engines. The fuel is thicker. and more likely to cloud in cold weather. This is a minor fix for the car companies.
E-89 will not run in most regular gasoline engines, although most Chryslers made in the last few years will run it fine. Maybe they should advertise this feature.

Long and short of this rant is that bashing the SUVs will not deter their purchase. The problem is oil consumption. These are real solutions that would clean up the air and reduce America's oil consumption. Cost of ownership ( fuel ) is the only thing that will sway the purchases of SUVs.

Myself? I own a SUV ( Chevy S-10 Blazer ) and a TDi Jetta

My 2 cents.

Max.

P.S. My personal experience is that the quality of a Chevy truck is far superior than that of an Audi/Volkswagon.

Max.

groovebuster
Oct 16, 2005, 12:45 PM
Are you suggesting that there should be only one class in the US - a huge middle class - with nobody wealthier, and that we should all share our resources? So everyone should be equal, right.

That's communism!

Ooops! I said the bad word! :D ;)

The basic concept of (modern) communism is atually pretty good. Just the greed of the people doesn't allow it to work...

You can't run a perfect system with imperfect people. ... the same old story! :rolleyes:

groovebuster

Jon'sLightBulbs
Oct 16, 2005, 02:29 PM
That's communism!

Ooops! I said the bad word! :D ;)



Let our friend novamac walk into the trap first, and THEN pull the punchline!

EJBasile
Oct 16, 2005, 02:51 PM
There should be more diesel cars in the US.

The only three sedans available are the VW Passat TDi, VW Jetta TDi and the Mercedes E320 CDI. VW discontinued the Touareg V10 TDI (which got the same gas mileage as the V8 and V6 versions).

I have the E320 CDI and it is one of the best cars in my opinion. I get 37mpg highway, around 28mpg city. Yes diesel is a little more than gas, it does not get as good mileage as something like a corolla, and it costs significantly more than the corolla, it has great quality and does not feel light and cheep.

Cars I would recommend for diesel off the top of my head:
Touareg V6 and V8
Mercedes C-Class and M-Class
Audi A4 and possibly A6
BMW 3, 5, and X3/X5 series

hookahco
Oct 16, 2005, 04:25 PM
There should be more diesel cars in the US.

i agree 100%. The most reliable engines in the world are diesel. i don't know why the us govt is so against them.

groovebuster
Oct 17, 2005, 12:11 AM
i agree 100%. The most reliable engines in the world are diesel. i don't know why the us govt is so against them.

I always thought they just don't care!?!? As well as most of the US population. Not long ago gasoline was still pretty cheap in the US compared to other regions of the world (e.g. Europe). Why bothering to drive a diesel then, when it costs you only a few dollars less at the gas station? Especially since the car is more expensive because of the Diesel engine?

The same reason why you can't buy little or fuel efficient cars in North America.

I'm no SUV apologist, but what's wrong with an under 6 ft. mother driving her kids to school in a Sequoia or an Explorer? The visibility in an SUV is better than in a passenger car. Your higher line of sight enables you to see further down the road, and the pillars usually aren't as encumbering.

What is wrong with it is very easy... It is a waste of resources. Three people driving around in a few tons of metal? For what reason? Especially the impact on other people's safety by these vehicles is a big issue. Other people already said it... they are blocking the view for other people and the high mass causes more severe damages to ther vehicles in an accident. On top a heavy vehicle like a SUV is harder to control in difficult road conditions due to its high mass and high center of gravity.

So maybe it nice to sit that high and to make up for the inability to properly drive... but that's on the back of the other people participating in public traffic. BTW, I never heard a sports car driver complaining that he doesn't see enough and cuasing more accidents because of that.

Here in Germany they were thinking about forbidding SUVs for the public and only allowing them with special permissions for people who really need them... but since that would be against EU law it probably won't happen...

Would you like that family to travel in a little Citroen or Fiat? I mean, let's be objective here. When you saw those familes of 5 and 6 in Europe traveling around in little 2 door Seats or Renaults, did they look comfortable?

Sorry dude... but most families are not 5 or 6 people, they are 4! Also in the US. On top you probably never sat in a small car for longer so how do you know what is comfortable? A mom bringing her two kids to school definitely doesn't need a huge SUV for it.

Until our second daughter was born we were having only this as a car:

http://www.kleberg.net/download/pictures/cinquecento.jpg

It was absolutely enough. We even went on vacation with it: 2 adults and a baby!

There might be people who really need a SUV. What was discussed was the fact that a high percentage of the people who are driving one don't need one and that usage of a SUV is a waste of resources on the back of the rest of the population.

Isn't it weird that all the european car makers don't sell their small models in North America and only the mid-size and big engine configurations, but never the small efficient ones? Here in Europe the companies make most of their money with small and fuel efficient cars. 40% of all cars sold are Diesels meanwhile. No wonder since our gas prices are at around 1.30€/l. Maybe you guys should have more realistc gas prices in the future (a big part of the tax we are paying on gas here in Germany is for the pollution/damage it is causing) and then you guys will start to realize that big isn't always beautiful...

But what do I expect from a country that bombards me with dozens of penis enlargement and Viagra SPAM e-mails every day...? :rolleyes:

groovebuster

EDIT: Meanwhile we are driving this as a car. And it is absolutely enough for a family of four! And yes, we are very comfortable in it, getting 35-40mpg in the city and more than 50mpg (Diesel) on the highway...
http://www.kleberg.net/download/pictures/new_car/stilo1a.jpg

Jon'sLightBulbs
Oct 17, 2005, 12:34 AM
Please read the post that precedes a response before replying to that response. The guy was complaining about a five foot five inch tall mother driving an SUV because he percieved that she would have bad visibility out the windshield. His perception is that SUVs somehow yield worse visibility than normal cars. Note that he says that at 6 feet tall himself, he could barely see out of an SUV - how could the shorter mother? I pointed out a simple misconception.

Further, I don't agree that even a family of four will ever be more comfortable in any of the subcompacts you see roaming European cities. "Enough," is of course relative. They're less comfortable than in a full sized sedan. That much is certain.

Finally, the European perception that their fuel prices are "realistic" and that U.S. prices are artificially low is laughable. Excise taxes constitute a huge part of your gas prices. How are excise taxes a "natural" market driver? They drive up prices to reduce consumption for policy reasons.

You claim that our fuel prices are artificially low. Just the opposite. My friend, your fuel prices are artificially high.

groovebuster
Oct 17, 2005, 02:20 AM
When you are selling something only at the the price point of production costs even though using or disposing the product is causing damage to the environment (which causes a high amount of costs, often more than just the production costs), the price is kept artificially low, because the aftermath is paid not by the polluter himself but by the rest of the people living on this planet. This applies to every consumption of resources or energy. Here in Germany a big part of the tax on gasoline is also going into infrastructure. The maintenance of the streets therefore is mainly paid by those who use them.

I don't claim that the system we have in the EU is perfect by now, especially since some countries (including Germany) are struggling ecomonically at the moment and the changing process is slowed down. But the high gasoline prizes are forcing the majority of the people to use gas a little bit more responsible. Therefore pollution per car is way less than compared to the US, which is a good thing. And I don't think that you wouldn't agree on that... right?

And maybe you can explain to me the concept of "the outside size of a car equals comfort to drive it"? Maybe I am just an ignorant European, but so far I didn't get it... :confused:

I find it convenient to always find a parking in a big city like Berlin due to the small size of my car. I also like it that I don't have to pay a fortune for gas every month in order to keep my car running. Insurance is also way cheaper than for a big vehicle. Let's not even start about the monthly rates... The seating position is just as comfortable as in a big SUV and I am am 6'1" guy weighing more than 200lbs. I am pretty sure that even though gas prizes are that high here in Germany, I am paying way less overall for our 2 cars than you do for one SUV. I just don't see why I should spend a fortune every month just to drive a car that is totally oversized in every possible aspect. I am making good money and I could afford a big car, but our priorities are different ones. But what I definitely don't want is to be forced to pay for the willful waste of other people...

Just my 0.02€

groovebuster

Santaduck
Oct 17, 2005, 05:21 AM
As far as environment is concerned, I live in California and strongly believe that air quality here is much better than is was in the 80s. Admittedly, I have no scientific basis for that statement, but it seems cleaner than it used to -- and this is with many more cars on the road than 20 years ago.


I grew up in San Jose, and remember the air in the 80s. When I go back to San Jose to visit the air is unimaginably worse today-- the average day's clarity today is the same as an especially bad smog day in the 80s.

Maybe SoCal air is better than the 80s?

Gotta say you would never expect this thread to become so long by looking at that first post :)

Chip NoVaMac
Oct 18, 2005, 07:37 PM
There should be more diesel cars in the US.

<snip>

I have the E320 CDI and it is one of the best cars in my opinion. I get 37mpg highway, around 28mpg city. Yes diesel is a little more than gas, it does not get as good mileage as something like a corolla, and it costs significantly more than the corolla, it has great quality and does not feel light and cheep.



And the diesel Corolla would get way better than the gas version

quagmire
Oct 18, 2005, 09:12 PM
And the diesel Corolla would get way better than the gas version

When Epilson II comes out, we might be seeing a Diesel Malibu/G6.

darkwing
Oct 18, 2005, 09:16 PM
Bah. I have been a lifelong GM and Mopar man but they both have let me down. GTO? Please. Charger? Not quite. They should both learn something from what Ford did with the Mustang.

That's why I just crossed over and bought a 2006 Mustang GT on Saturday. :cool:

I'll look for you in my WS6 trans am. It truly is the batmobile.

superfunkomatic
Oct 19, 2005, 09:42 AM
I always thought they just don't care!?!? As well as most of the US population.

i think until there is no fuel left or the world's gas guage says "5%" people won't change their habits. especially north americans, there's some kind of "i should have the right to do whatever i want, regardless of the outcome" mentality. look at the previous posts - americans (and some canadians) consider driving a vehicle of their choice a right.

with fuel prices continuing to rise simple economics will start weeding out the SUV drivers - it'll become too expensive to operate. and frankly, as i mentioned in a previous post - why would anyone want to pay more for gasoline, instead of using the money for movies, fun, beer, etc? that's really beyond me.

sometimes economics helps move people in environmental directions whether they like it or not.

vixapphire
Oct 19, 2005, 01:15 PM
I pretty much agree with everything you say here. I probably should have used the word sensible instead of moral. However, I don't expect any unusually sensible acts from US politicians as long as there's no serious... well let's stay away from politics...

and you think politicians elsewhere are sensible? get real, wake up, etc. :rolleyes:

vixapphire
Oct 19, 2005, 01:29 PM
I agree with you Stevie. I have a 2002 Chevy Suburban( also bought in 2001). It has gotten amazing fuel economy for that size of the vehicle. GM is right on saying they got the most fuel efficient full sizers in their class with V8's. I went on a road trip to New York and it got 18 MPG highway. That is right on the EPA estimate. I can't say about City driving since I mainly use it for highway and long trips( it is very comfartable). I also use it to tow horse trailers. I also had a 1996 Chevy Suburban which got traded in for my current one. The '96 had no problems what so ever to warranty the trade in. I just decided to take advantage of the good deals post-9/11. It is the same story with the current Suburban. No problems at all.

i'm one up on both you SUV gas-guzzler drivers: i drive a mid-sized European-made (0% US parts content) STATION WAGON (not an SUV, mind you) that gets me gas mileage like yours... on a good day. and you know what? i don't give a hoot because, all things considered, my "giving back" is what it is in many other parts of my life; just not the car that i'm currently driving. if i had more space in my garage, i'd put a miata or little 2.3 litre SLK in there for getting around town and save the wagon for its natural habitat (the wide open freeway), but life is full of compromises. besides, my work commute is less than 5 miles roundtrip, so my $50 fill-up lasts me around 2.5 weeks too. i need the space in a car, and i don't like the center of gravity and visibility-for-other-drivers issues that SUV's carry with them (especially driving around town). yet, many of the people on this board would rather punish me for it. i paid my gas guzzler tax, and my annual registration fees are commensurate with the sticker price on the vehicle (i.e. astronomical), so why doesn't everyone just go back to crying in their beer/latte/soy milk, already and accept that their choices and reasons for making them are different, not necessarily superior, to others', and respect others' right to choose?!!!

really, the sanctimony is getting rather nauseating when it comes to these discussions of automobiles. weren't we talking about the styling of the next-gen yukon a few pages ago?

v

vixapphire
Oct 19, 2005, 01:39 PM
anyone remember the 1970s?
fuel shortages, rising fuel prices, large behemoth muscle cars and huge v8 family cars.
didn't learn anything the first time?
sad to see huge flagging/failing organizations like chev and ford spending money releasing new inefficient vehicles. do you really need a 400 hp V8 motor to pick the kids up after school? i'm guessing not.

i agree, with a caveat: it's nice to have choices.

anyone buying a car that comes with a reserved spot at their neighborhood gas station should only do so knowing that they can afford it, and make the decision with open eyes. pretty much, if you don't like the high prices but you're driving a bomber, you forfeit your right to piss and moan about it. i don't have a problem with that.

what i do take issue with is (a) the tendency to blame car companies for consumers' choices; could've bought a pontiac sunfire with a 4-banger instead of that v-8 cadillac, after all...; and (b) the idea of a lot of people, including (contradictorily) anti-SUV/fuel consumption types, that there is a place for government price controls in the gasoline market during a temporary supply interruption. letting the market drive prices up north of $3 is a great way of handing choice back to the consumer: you can drive the escalade if you want to, but are you going to drive as often/far paying that much for gas? or are you going to pull out the neglected ford tempo 4-banger parked out beside the house and drive that one instead? and eventually, they trade/sell-off the 'slade and buy a hybrid lexus SUV instead in the absence of price drops at the pump.

i think most people will act rationally when given the choice. it's when the gov't steps in and says that gas/electricity/etc. prices can't go above x that people, insulated from the realities of the scarcity conditions, continue to act as though there is no interruption/scarcity, which is irrational, but sanctioned by the government in that scenario.

v

vixapphire
Oct 19, 2005, 02:00 PM
The issue that some of have with the larger SUV's are beyond the the MPG ratings.

you are changing the subject.

not that i disagree with your gripes about parking spots, red-light "edging" etc., but you are changing the subject. and the "nation of excess" stuff sounds funny to me. been to the ozarks lately? indiana? ohio? etc.... oh, i guess it's the stuff that's on "pimp my ride" that's driving your argument, then. ok.

incidentally, with regard to home sizes, having been active in the LA housing market during the past 4 years, i've noticed a few things. older places are smaller, new construction tends to have larger square footages. this supports your argument. on paper. the interesting thing i found is that the extra footage is often taken by things like (a) wider hallways to accommodate gov't imposed housing regulations that require halls/doors/etc. be wide enough for wheelchairs/handicapped (not a bad thing, mind you), (b) really stupid wasted areas of space that have nothing to do with the living space, and everything to do with the developer having hired a lousy architect that has to introduce such "alcoves" etc. to compensate for the design's otherwise obvious shortcomings.

i don't know the answer to it, other than to say that some of the growth is the result of regulations, etc. most houses you see in developments like valencia, etc. aren't really all that much "bigger" than older houses (they don't have more or even necessarily much larger rooms), but they've got wider halls, stairways, and more silly accoutrements like "grand foyers" etc. seriously, a grand foyer in some suburban cookie cutter house? who are these people fooling? :confused:

vixapphire
Oct 19, 2005, 02:16 PM
But never did we see people buying "regular" homes, only to building something that might be twice the size and out out of character for the community.

man, you would hate to see what's being done in beverly hills. it's unbelievable to me that people can come in, pay 2-3 million for a beautiful, large (yes, those 1920's homes were often 3-5000 square feet, even back then), well-situated (i.e. they sat nicely on their lots, had plenty of front and rear lawn, trees, multicar garages/guesthouses out in back, etc.), absolutely gorgeous house (albeit one that may need to be redecorated inside - so what), only to pull up on moving day with a bulldozer, mow the whole thing down and proceed to build a monstrous palace that spans practically to the 4 corners of the lot. it is truly awful, and frankly, completely mind-boggling to me what the purpose is, other than the bragging rights on the most extravagantly-outfitted joint on the block.

like you, i wasn't raised with, and have never cultivated, a set of values that can easily rationalize (or would even try) that idea of outsized living. i just don't get it! at the same time, i find the good in it by looking at the number of people employed in the demolition and new construction, most of whom would likely have a harder time of things if not for people with the means and will to build their dream homes, even on the rubble of something just as spacious (and often better-constructed).

to each his/her own, i suppose. although there is something melancholy about watching a neighborhood lose its character over time this way. i wonder what part the seeming diminishing respect for "cultural institutions" (which in this case would include architecture etc.) that feels like a substantial part of american life has played in the way people feel about this stuff.

v

vixapphire
Oct 19, 2005, 02:33 PM
Over the last five to ten years we have allowed the "greed" of the US to rule over over National and World interests. Bigger and faster seem to have over ruled common sense.

Car manufactures have the ability to play with gear ratios in order to get better MPG. But that comes at a price of performance.

dude, you're losing me. i think it's possible that you've lost yourself a bit, too, on this point.

when all the top-performing cars on the world market are european (bmw "m" cars, mercedes "amg" cars, etc.) and the US automakers are constantly playing catch-up in the high-performance stakes so they can claw back some marketshare from their european betters, both of which are the case in today's market, how can you support your assertions? don't talk about performance if you want to advance the argument, because that's where the argument is weakest, if not an outright failure. :o

vixapphire
Oct 19, 2005, 02:37 PM
honestly, does a 5'5" mom need a chevy suburban to drop her 2 or 3 kids off at school? i can promise you that i see at least 50 new suburbans and tahoes every day and theyre mostly driven by short woman...

it must be a napoleonic thing :D

vixapphire
Oct 19, 2005, 02:49 PM
These same folks could find comfort as I did as a child in a Ford Country Squire Wagon, and get better MPG to boot.

hate to say it, but those ol' ford country squires didn't get better gas mileage than SUV's. you've got it backwards. i've owned a handful, being a station wagon afficionado myself. my '73 had a great look to it, but got around 7 mpg, running regular (leaded) fuel. i had an 80-something one (i think it was 83, but can't remember) and it was marginally better - low tens/teens, at best.

if they've done one thing right, the automakers have engineered much more efficient internal combustion engines over the past 30 years. not saying that SUV's are paragons of fuel economy, but overall, engines have gotten much more efficient than they were back then.

and "greed is good" is always, and always has been, part of the culture here. look at the 1920's, look at the 1980's, look at the 1990's, even (*gasp!*): do you recall reading about the ridiculous excesses of the silicon valley dotcom millionaires? the houses, cars, etc. that were being flaunted back then were every bit as ostentatious as the ones in the current boom. it seems that nowadays, this country's culture of celebrity has made even the relatively infrequent (in a land of 300 million people) seem ubiquitous through the constant barrage of media like "pimp my ride/house/whatever". other than the general coarsening of people's manners over the years (which i take no position on), i'm not persuaded that the widespread hand-wringing over the "greed of the ugly americans" on this thread is much more than undergraduate-level sophistry.

v

vixapphire
Oct 19, 2005, 02:58 PM
I grew up in San Jose, and remember the air in the 80s. When I go back to San Jose to visit the air is unimaginably worse today-- the average day's clarity today is the same as an especially bad smog day in the 80s.

Maybe SoCal air is better than the 80s?

Gotta say you would never expect this thread to become so long by looking at that first post :)

i don't know where the documentation is, but i recall reading in the papers and hearing in media throughout the past few years that i've been back in LA (in addition to my own anecdotal notice of the phenomenon) that the air quality has improved since the 1980s. the first thing they did was get rid of most of the older, crappier polluting cars. by getting them off the roads, they've cleared things up considerably.

DakotaGuy
Oct 19, 2005, 05:23 PM
- why would anyone want to pay more for gasoline, instead of using the money for movies, fun, beer, etc? that's really beyond me.

Some people would consider that use for money as bad as using it for gasoline. I mean especially beer. You drink it and well your smart enough to know where it goes.

If everyone was more responsible with the vehicles they own right now, think about how much further along we would be. If everyone would drive a little slower (saves fuel in any vehicle), cut out all unnecessary driving (believe me, there is a lot of that) and lived closer to to school and work, imagine how much fuel it would save? I drive a Ford Explorer and I am glad I have it when the roads become bad in the winter or I have to pull my trailer. I live close to work and walk most days or ride my Yamaha ATV, which will run around town for a month on 2 gallons of fuel. (I live in a small rural town). Also, my vehicle is a Flex-Fuel model and I use 85% Ethanol whenever it is available. Considering my vehicle is parked quite a bit of the time and when I do drive I am using an alternative fuel source, I am actually using less gasoline then someone driving an economy car that is not trying to conserve.

What else can you do? Install a digital "time set" thermostat in your house and make sure the temp is lowered when you are gone from the house if it is winter or higher in the summer. I know that has nothing to do with the type of vehicle you drive, but it still helps save natural resources. Other things you can do...increase your use of electric appliances in your house (water heater, etc.) True some fossil fuels are used to make electricity, but a lot of electricity is produced with alternative energy sources.

hoyboy9
Oct 19, 2005, 07:14 PM
i was born in the USA and ive lived all my life here and in my short (18 year old) life ive spent time in europe and the middle east (the good part) and i have to say.. american culture makes me sick.

I totally know where you're coming from. I was born in the States, but ended up spending almost 6 years overseas. The hardest move for me to make was .... moving back to the US.

I don't think it's the culture that makes me sick, it's the sheer ignorance of other countries and wonton wastefulness that got me. Although, you can't really blame Americans for their ways, because for so long, there was no impetus to be conscious of other countries and natural resources in general.

But now that oil is passing its world peak, the American lifestyle is going to get increasingly expensive. So you would think Americans would be driven more than ever to get innovating again to fix problems. But our current situation tells another story.

Now that the manufacturing sector has largely shifted outside the US, and the technical professions next up on the chopping block, Americans will be forced to come to terms with their "culture." Decades of producing way too many lawyers, marketers, "services professionals", and middle management has sapped America of its innovative spark.

We need more American engineers and Ph.D.'s. It's hard not to notice when I sit in on my grad-level engineering classes that 90% of the class is Chinese or Indian. These people ain't staying when they get their Ph.D.'s, they will take it back home to their native country. I want tomorrow's great ideas to be American, and that won't happen if this brain-drain continues.

Developing countries, in particular, ought to look to the US as an example of what NOT to become, as our society has evolved such an unsustainable way of life.

Chip NoVaMac
Oct 19, 2005, 07:20 PM
hate to say it, but those ol' ford country squires didn't get better gas mileage than SUV's. you've got it backwards. i've owned a handful, being a station wagon afficionado myself. my '73 had a great look to it, but got around 7 mpg, running regular (leaded) fuel. i had an 80-something one (i think it was 83, but can't remember) and it was marginally better - low tens/teens, at best.


The point being was that given the better mpg's of large sedans, so would the likes of the Country Squire wagons if they were available today.

vixapphire
Oct 20, 2005, 05:52 PM
The point being was that given the better mpg's of large sedans, so would the likes of the Country Squire wagons if they were available today.

huh?

if you look at a 7mpg 70's stn wagon, compare it to a 14 mpg denali SUV, i think you're still gonna find that the SUV's doing better than the station wagon. if you mean that if they built the same station wagon today, it would do better than the 14 mpg of today's SUV, i'm not going to disagree.

funny thing about station wagons is that in many cases, today's station wagons pack a little more cargo room than a lot of SUV's. at least, where the floorspace is involved (SUV's may have more cubic footage due to their height).

and when it comes to comfort, most SUV drivers are sort of fooling themselves: for instance, the cadillac DTS has more legroom front and rear than the escalade, yet it's a sedan (granted, a huge one) that weighs substantially less and thus does somewhat better on fuel.

i suppose in the final analysis, for the most part the SUV thing is a status/prestige/chest-thumping issue. how much that sort of thing gets under your skin will affect your reaction to SUVs and their drivers. it doesn't really affect me at all, although all the points in these threads about the visibility-obstructing properties of SUV's and their lethality for other drivers involved in accidents with them are well taken.

Chip NoVaMac
Oct 20, 2005, 09:39 PM
huh?

if you look at a 7mpg 70's stn wagon, compare it to a 14 mpg denali SUV, i think you're still gonna find that the SUV's doing better than the station wagon. if you mean that if they built the same station wagon today, it would do better than the 14 mpg of today's SUV, i'm not going to disagree.

funny thing about station wagons is that in many cases, today's station wagons pack a little more cargo room than a lot of SUV's. at least, where the floorspace is involved (SUV's may have more cubic footage due to their height).

and when it comes to comfort, most SUV drivers are sort of fooling themselves: for instance, the cadillac DTS has more legroom front and rear than the escalade, yet it's a sedan (granted, a huge one) that weighs substantially less and thus does somewhat better on fuel.

i suppose in the final analysis, for the most part the SUV thing is a status/prestige/chest-thumping issue. how much that sort of thing gets under your skin will affect your reaction to SUVs and their drivers. it doesn't really affect me at all, although all the points in these threads about the visibility-obstructing properties of SUV's and their lethality for other drivers involved in accidents with them are well taken.

What I meant was that a 2005 Country Squire probably would be getting 27 to 30 mpg depending on the gear ratio (read performance) that Ford would want to give it.

You made the point that many of us have been trying to say about SUV's being an ego thing. I would say that 80% of SUV purchasers never need the cubic footage of the SUV.

The pain is that Big Oil and Big Auto interests have had their hands so far deep into the pockets of politicians, that we never have upgraded the CAFE requirements to mean anything. IMO there is little reason that we should not have Corolla class cars getting 45 to 50mpg Hwy and 35 to 40mpg City - without resorting to hybrid technology. With full size cars getting 25 to 28mpg City/30 to 35mpg Hwy.

What we have are laws that require us to wear seat belts. Laws for airbags in every car. Now laws that require phasing in on tire pressure! Granted these laws are for the good of the public for safety, but the laws should be there to protect shrinking limited resources for fossil based fuels. Even laws limiting the power (read 0-60 times) could be argued would be a safety benefit to consumers. As would speed limiters to restrict highway speeds to no more than 5 mph over the highest posted speed limit nationally.

Being part of a country/society means making sacrifices for the good of all. Something that more than 50% of this nation has no concept of what so ever. We will lose WW III (God forbid it should ever happen), because IMO people today would not raise the need as did my parents did back in WW II.

vixapphire
Nov 1, 2005, 06:07 PM
What I meant was that a 2005 Country Squire probably would be getting 27 to 30 mpg depending on the gear ratio (read performance) that Ford would want to give it.

You made the point that many of us have been trying to say about SUV's being an ego thing. I would say that 80% of SUV purchasers never need the cubic footage of the SUV.

The pain is that Big Oil and Big Auto interests have had their hands so far deep into the pockets of politicians, that we never have upgraded the CAFE requirements to mean anything. IMO there is little reason that we should not have Corolla class cars getting 45 to 50mpg Hwy and 35 to 40mpg City - without resorting to hybrid technology. With full size cars getting 25 to 28mpg City/30 to 35mpg Hwy.

What we have are laws that require us to wear seat belts. Laws for airbags in every car. Now laws that require phasing in on tire pressure! Granted these laws are for the good of the public for safety, but the laws should be there to protect shrinking limited resources for fossil based fuels. Even laws limiting the power (read 0-60 times) could be argued would be a safety benefit to consumers. As would speed limiters to restrict highway speeds to no more than 5 mph over the highest posted speed limit nationally.

Being part of a country/society means making sacrifices for the good of all. Something that more than 50% of this nation has no concept of what so ever. We will lose WW III (God forbid it should ever happen), because IMO people today would not raise the need as did my parents did back in WW II.

Interesting post. I'll go random in response to some of your items...

I'd say the Taurus or whatever they call it these days over at Ford, the station wagon they're currently/recently shucking is nowhere close to 27 mpg, nor is it a "performer" in the sense that we've been discussing. In other words, a failure on all counts!!!

I'd venture that the minicooper, vw rabbit/golf, etc. are all pretty efficient, lightweight cars. That said, the internal combustion engine, lord love it, appears to be near its limit on maximum squeezed-out efficiencies. Then again, every time someone says that, they come out with a new wrinkle that squeezes a few more mpg and hp out of these engines! Hell, they plopped a mild-mannered (~10 psi) supercharger on my Merc's 5.4 ltr engine and pulled nearly 475 hp and 516 lb/ft torque out of it -- whammy! I don't know the answer to your question about such high fuel efficiencies absent hybrid technology. My dad drove a '79 rabbit diesel for awhile and it did well enough on economy; i think it was up around 30 or mildly higher. Don't know if they can do much better than that on regular gasoline, though. But I'm no petrochemist/mechanical engineer, either.

"Big Oil"??? Outside the funny pages, does anyone really speak like that, or is it a convention of the written word? Just curious. On the other hand, if by "big oil" you mean that gargantuan fat-ass CEO of Exxon who was smiling across his several large, gelatinous chins the other day while discussing the company's latest quarterly earnings, yeah, he's big and he runs an oil company. Ladies and Gentlemen, "Big Oil". :)

On WWIII, you and I can agree to differ: personally, I think that WWIII has been declared and waged upon the west by a competing ideology (isn't ideology what all the world wars have been about, after all?) for several years before the USA, UK, etc. began a serious military response, which brings us to today.

There are a lot of people who don't see it that way. There are a lot of people who do. There are even some that consider the Cold War to have been "WWIII", and the current war between "western liberalism" and Islamist extremism to be WW IV. Upon listening, all three viewpoints have decent arguments. Oh well; it is what it is, regardless of what one chooses to call it.

v

quagmire
Nov 1, 2005, 07:49 PM
Okay, hopefully to get this thread back on track, the last of the GMT-900 SUV's to be revealed is the Cadillac Escalade on November 10th. Have pics and info by 12:30 am.

groovebuster
Nov 2, 2005, 01:46 AM
My dad drove a '79 rabbit diesel for awhile and it did well enough on economy; i think it was up around 30 or mildly higher.
Then your dad must have driven it kind of rough. My uncle had the same model and he always got more than 40mpg...

People don't see that there were already very fuel efficient cars back then with Diesel technology. Just nobody wanted to drive/buy them. And that's why the development of more fuel efficient or alternative technologies was neglected by the car manufacturers, resulting in a delay of about almost two decades...

Humans always need a big bang that affects them directly before they start to act. And history tells that in many cases it was too late then... Makes me pessimistic for the future of our planet. But I would love to be proven wrong... Time will tell.

groovebuster

njstaffer
Nov 9, 2005, 01:25 PM
Bah. I have been a lifelong GM and Mopar man but they both have let me down. GTO? Please. Charger? Not quite. They should both learn something from what Ford did with the Mustang.

That's why I just crossed over and bought a 2006 Mustang GT on Saturday. :cool:


Why would you buy a new Mustang?! :confused: Those are lame attempts to feel like your in a muscle car, a.k.a. Mid-life crisis.

You need to buy a real car like a '70 Chevelle, '67 Camaro, or a '69 Mustang.:cool:

Any new car that attempts to be a muscle car is a lame attempt.:(

quagmire
Nov 9, 2005, 01:47 PM
Tonight at 12 am I will have pics of the new Cadillac Escalade. Yes, I agree that the muscle car days are gone, no matter what Ford, GM, and Chrylser do to try to revive it. I say if you going to buy a Camaro from the 60's, it is the 1969 Camaro SS.

Lord Blackadder
Nov 9, 2005, 01:48 PM
Why would you buy a new Mustang?! :confused: Those are lame attempts to feel like your in a muscle car, a.k.a. Mid-life crisis.

You need to buy a real car like a '70 Chevelle, '67 Camaro, or a '69 Mustang.:cool:

Any new car that attempts to be a muscle car is a lame attempt.:(

The problem with the "real" cars you mention is that they can't do corners, can't stop and you'll die in an accident. They are fast cars but very much a piece of 60's engineering.

Don't get me wrong, 60's musclecars are in a class by themselves, but a modern Mustang GT is a true musclecar in every sense of the word - cheap, powerful and stylish.

Where I do agree with you is that a lot of the Mustangs roll off the assembly line as wimpy poser V6 models with an automatic, destined to be driven by middle-aged men and women who seek to relive their youth.

But there are definitely true muslcecars still being made. They may be a bit more sophisticated but they can still be brutal - The Charger V8/300C, Mustang GT, Holden Monaro (a.ka. the GTO). In 20 or 30 years these cars will be classics.

SharksFan22
Nov 9, 2005, 02:27 PM
Even laws limiting the power (read 0-60 times) could be argued would be a safety benefit to consumers. As would speed limiters to restrict highway speeds to no more than 5 mph over the highest posted speed limit nationally.


Chip, while I think it's safe to say you and I disagree on many things :) I thought this exact same thing the other day. Tearing along on the freeway in the dead of night at about 110 (in a German-built car designed to do well into 160 or 170mph) I wondered why we have speed limits while selling cars that easily blow through the highest speed limits. Not that I'm advocate of speed limiters, I just found it curious.

Now, the whole idea of giving a tax credit (I think it's $3K here in California) for people purchasing hybrids INSTEAD of giving that money as a new-car purchase incentive to the poor bastard driving a 20-year old Ford Tempo that puts out much, much more pollution on the road still boggles my mind when the goal is to lower emissions, right? :-)

Johnny Rico
Nov 9, 2005, 03:16 PM
Ah american cars: the PC of the automotive world.
And SUV's! The Gateway of the automotive world.

Enjoy your crap.

Lord Blackadder
Nov 9, 2005, 03:50 PM
Granted these laws are for the good of the public for safety, but the laws should be there to protect shrinking limited resources for fossil based fuels. Even laws limiting the power (read 0-60 times) could be argued would be a safety benefit to consumers. As would speed limiters to restrict highway speeds to no more than 5 mph over the highest posted speed limit nationally.

Limiting speeds won't solve the problem either. My car ('99 Nissan Altima) gets better fuel economy and pollutes less at 100mph than a Chevy Tahoe does at 60mph, even with displacement on demand technologies the latter vehicle boasts about. Even cars with poor fuel economy numbers but low production numbers (like the Ford GT or Ferrari 430) have little statistical effect on resource consumption or poluution.

The offenders are gas-guzzler vehicles produced in very large numbers (i.e. Ford Explorer - over 250,000 built a year) that are driven every day as passenger vehicles (unlike the Ford GT or Ferraris). Trucks and SUVs are the biggest offender in this regard.

People in America and elsewhere will not switch over to very efficient transportation until such transportation is as cheap as and matches performance with current models.

SharksFan22
Nov 10, 2005, 01:43 AM
People in America and elsewhere will not switch over to very efficient transportation until such transportation is as cheap as and matches performance with current models.

DING DING DING!! I think we have a winner here. I agree wholeheartedly -- when the automakers deliver a product that's on par with regards to price and performance, then I'll consider it, but until then I'll stick with my fossil fuel burner.

rickvanr
Nov 10, 2005, 02:18 AM
i think until there is no fuel left or the world's gas guage says "5%" people won't change their habits. especially north americans, there's some kind of "i should have the right to do whatever i want, regardless of the outcome" mentality. look at the previous posts - americans (and some canadians) consider driving a vehicle of their choice a right.

with fuel prices continuing to rise simple economics will start weeding out the SUV drivers - it'll become too expensive to operate. and frankly, as i mentioned in a previous post - why would anyone want to pay more for gasoline, instead of using the money for movies, fun, beer, etc? that's really beyond me.

sometimes economics helps move people in environmental directions whether they like it or not.

A voice of reason, and it's someone from Oilberta to boot.

dernhelm
Nov 10, 2005, 05:08 AM
Just another nail in America's gas-guzzling coffin. What are these companies thinking??? When the backlash against these wasteful vehicles really begins, Americans will turn to fuel efficient (and mostly foreign) hybrids and small cars. The Japanese are already 10 years ahead in that department.

GM needs to get on the ball and create a Prius killer, or die a slow death.

Really? Chevy makes family cars. What family with more than 2 people can fit in a Prius? Not everyone lives in a city - us rural folk need real vehicles as well. Now what I want is a hybrid Silverado - if I can jump from 18 to 28 MPG in my truck, I can get 55% better mileage, which means I'm filling up less than half the time. The difference between a 50MPG Prius and 40MPG foreign non-hybrid is nowhere near as great.

The zealots out there that want everyone to drive some tiny little "bug" car are missing the point completely.

jeffy.dee-lux
Nov 10, 2005, 11:15 AM
http://www.detnews.com/pix/2005/11/10/biz/b010-cadillacescalade-1105n_copy_11-10-2005_G39KOC3-2.jpg

http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0511/10/C01-377887.htm

looks aight to me, better than the last one anyways. I can't say i'm a fan of this segment of vehicles. At least with a yukon, or a tahoe, there might be maybe a good 20 percent of the owners who actually make use of the vehicles capabilities once in a while... I have yet to see an escallade towing a boat or a camper or filled with camping gear or heading onto anything but a clean paved road. At least with a GMC or a Chevy you could pretend you might need a truck like that...

Lord Blackadder
Nov 10, 2005, 12:52 PM
http://www.detnews.com/pix/2005/11/10/biz/b010-cadillacescalade-1105n_copy_11-10-2005_G39KOC3-2.jpg

http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0511/10/C01-377887.htm

looks aight to me, better than the last one anyways. I can't say i'm a fan of this segment of vehicles. At least with a yukon, or a tahoe, there might be maybe a good 20 percent of the owners who actually make use of the vehicles capabilities once in a while... I have yet to see an escallade towing a boat or a camper or filled with camping gear or heading onto anything but a clean paved road. At least with a GMC or a Chevy you could pretend you might need a truck like that...

I would never buy an SUV, but if I had to I would go with a Range Rover - better both off road and on than American SUVs, which are good for towing but lack real off-road capapbility.

quagmire
Nov 10, 2005, 05:49 PM
Full pics and info are here. As you can see The Escalade looks a lt like the Cadillac Sixteen concept.

Pics:

http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=22539

Info:

http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=22540

PS: Yes The GMT-900 SUV's aren't ideal for off roading. There intended use was for towing, which they do perfectly. If you want off road, look at Hummer, Land Rover( Ford owned), and Jeep.

rickvanr
Nov 10, 2005, 06:10 PM
Eeek. Caddy's are really uninspiring.

Chip NoVaMac
Nov 10, 2005, 08:44 PM
Eeek. Caddy's are really uninspiring.

I agree, they look like design exercises that went bad. :eek:

jeffy.dee-lux
Nov 10, 2005, 10:09 PM
nice, just noticed the vents on the front fenders. i love those things... pretty much any car that's got a vent on the side with a bar along it... its a sweet car. so this thing's playing the association game pretty well. They did a good job i'd say overall, taking the new GT900 and making it a cadi, though just like any of GM's badge engineering, the rear end ain't distinctive enough.