Lesson not learned: SUV sales outpace sedans
posted at 1:47 pm on January 6, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view
When gas prices skyrocketed on global demand for energy, Americans began looking for fuel-efficient bargains in new vehicle sales. Analysts predicted that the price shock would resonate with buyers even after the oil bubble popped and prices declined to reasonable levels. Apparently, the lesson didn’t last long:
It looks like the Highlander is in and the Prius is out — for now at least.
Trucks and sport utility vehicles will outsell cars for the first time since February, according to a December report by Edmunds.com, which tracks industry statistics.
“Despite all the public discussion of fuel efficiency, SUVs and trucks are the industry’s biggest sellers right now as a remarkable number of buyers seem to be compelled by three factors: great deals, low gas prices and winter weather,” said Michelle Krebs of AutoObserver.com, a division of Edmunds.com, in a prepared statement.
“It was this summer that customers were concerned about the gas mileage. It hasn’t been a topic of conversation lately,” said Dave Lawson, the general sales manager at Pomoco Chrysler Jeep Dodge in Newport News. The majority of Pomoco’s inventory is SUVs, and its best-selling models are minivans.
That may be good news in the short run for domestic automakers, which bet heavily against smaller models, but in the long run will provide another opportunity for price shocks to American consumers. Oil has dropped to levels not seen in years, but that’s not due to massive new amounts of petroleum reserves. The commodity trading has sharply declined due to a much lower demand caused by the global economic recession, and it’s not likely to last. When economies begin recovering, energy demand will increase, and we will almost certainly see a return to $3 per gallon gasoline within a year, two years at the outside — unless we massively increase American production and refining during that time.
Why do consumers gravitate towards the bigger, less efficient models? It’s not because Americans like to spend money on gasoline. Smaller, lighter models are less safe, which is one of the reasons people resisted the CAFE standards increase that Democrats pushed through Congress last session. Winters, especially hard winters like we are experiencing now, tend to amplify those concerns. An SUV is a lot more likely to survive a big impact than a Prius, which makes it a better investment, even without considering the safety of those inside the car.
Even with that, though, one would have thought that consumers would have remembered the pain at the pump this summer and begun moving away from the SUV models in favor of more efficient cars. They may prefer the bigger cars now, but they may have to drive less later as a result.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4
Here let me help you out.
WAAAAA WAAAAAA :( WAAAAAAA
Cry me a freaking river. When you stop buy FORIEGN CARS and BUY AMERICAN CARS… then get off your ass and possibly CALL your Congressman about DRILLING… then I will stop giving you crap. Until then… begone with your tree hugging ninnies of California Red’s!
upinak on January 7, 2009 at 1:30 PM
Studs! Best thing.. chains suck!
upinak on January 7, 2009 at 1:31 PM
Enough with the studs already ;) You have a one-track mind
LimeyGeek on January 7, 2009 at 1:34 PM
Here is some nice info about chains vs. studs. It’s a nice site if you have any questions about 4X4s and chains.
DFCtomm on January 7, 2009 at 1:38 PM
You could be right. I personally wouldn’t mind an Isreali surgical strike on Iranian facilities, but I think it’s a long shot to wipe out their program. A direct Isreali assault on Iran (i.e., invasion or multiple strikes) will undoubtedly ignite widespread religious war. I’m not sure Obama would back them in this “unprovoked” attack.
I also don’t think Obama will do squat to keep Iran from getting nukes. There’s not a good solution at this point, unless you count hoping lower oil prices keep the Iranians from having the $$ to develop an effective program.
cs89 on January 7, 2009 at 1:41 PM
Drill baby drill!
Spitfire9 on January 7, 2009 at 2:11 PM
First off I will NEVER buy chains for a 4X4 truck. It ruins the 4 wheel drive if you go faster then 40. Sorry.. I live on snow and ice for months… chains up here don’t apply and damage the roads. Also Studs aren’t bad for 4 wheel drive.. under 65.
Living in Alaska you learn what works and what doesn’t. Black Ice is still going to make people with chains slide around! Sometimes worse…
upinak on January 7, 2009 at 2:12 PM
Can’t help it I like em. :)
upinak on January 7, 2009 at 2:13 PM
I can see your point regarding black ice, because it can often occur on an otherwise clear road where chains would be unusable. I go for what works with a given situation, and I wouldn’t have a problem with studs for infrequent black ice and two sets of chains in the vehicle for emergencies. That would be my setup for locales with extended winter driving conditions.
DFCtomm on January 7, 2009 at 2:22 PM
Well if you have 2 people that have jobs at 2 different sites or one person that has a job, and one person that stays at home, then you need 2 vehicles. That being said, 1 SUV that gets 20 mpg doesn’t achieve this goal. Your comparison is flawed and cannot be used to make a point because you stated a flawed scenario.
Besides, who buys 2 cars as an alternative to 1 SUV? If you need 2 vehicles, you buy 2 vehicles. If you need one vehicle, you buy 1 vehicle.
People that have jobs hauling things around would have more success with a heavy duty truck, or a heavy duty van.
I own a honda civic coupe. I don’t own a Ford or GM because they were overpriced, had bad gas mileage, and horrible warranties during the time period that I was buying a car. As with all Hondas made after 2005, all Toyotas made after 2007, and all Nissans made after 2003, my passenger seat will disable the airbags in the entire front passenger side of the car if it detects weight between 1 lb and 30 lbs. Therefore, that pretty much debunks your “childless people” theory.
Besides, these tiny cars still have back seats to put a kid in. For anyone to state that having a child or a job that requires hauling loads requires you to have an SUV is ludicrous, and downright dumb.
I’m not following your logic here, are you saying that you absolutely cannot put your baby in the seat behind the passenger side of a full size car? I find that hard to believe, and have actually seen the scenario that you’re describing being done by someone in a compact car. Sorry, but you’re just wrong, not to mention absurd.
Because people ABSOLUTELY MUST have the ability to haul 400 or 500 pounds worth of crap just to go to the movies or something? Trying to justify an SUV for those reasons will always put you on the losing side.
leetpriest on January 7, 2009 at 2:40 PM
unclesmrgol on January 7, 2009 at 2:41 PM
How do you know what is “American” oil and what isn’t. It sure isn’t the name of the companie who is selling the gasoline or diesel.
And since you can have you crappy aluminum can on wheels (which a friends of mine son died in one Christmas Eve) I will keep my SUV.. Ford (who didn’t take the bail out) and buy another truck to haul my toys around. Becuae living in Alaska… with a car that runs on batteries, and the temp is a BALMY -30 this morning…. isn’t smart by any means.
upinak on January 7, 2009 at 2:47 PM
How about.. I do not want to drive a little car ever again because they are not made to withstand a bump in the road.
Can you grasp that?
upinak on January 7, 2009 at 2:48 PM
Not directly, no, but they sure as hell figured out how to cash in on the credit bailout asap.
It’s all rotten to the core….and Constitutionally criminal.
LimeyGeek on January 7, 2009 at 2:54 PM
Listen carefully. Here, in America, in a free country with a free market economy, nobody has to justify themselves to petty snot-nosed feckers like you.
Whinge and gripe about the life choices of others all you like…you’re impotent.
LimeyGeek on January 7, 2009 at 2:56 PM
I think they’re saying it’s harder than it needs to be, and it’s easier and worth the $ to just buy a larger vehicle and pay more for gas.
Listen, I’ve had 3 car seats in the backseat of a Buick Park Avenue (1992 model) and that was tough in a big car. You can stick a kid or 2 in the backseat of a compact car, but it ain’t easy or fun.
cs89 on January 7, 2009 at 2:56 PM
Exactly – I’m 6′2″ and I tried to get a car seat in and out of my Jetta a couple of times and almost ended up in traction.
Not to mention the stuff that goes with the baby, if you take a trip. Pack and play, crib, etc., 200 lbs. of stuff for a 20 pound baby and I agree it’s probably not all necessary, but anyone who disagrees can take it up with my wife, I’m staying out of it.
NoDonkey on January 7, 2009 at 3:27 PM
Wise man…a wise man indeed.
kanda on January 7, 2009 at 3:45 PM
I keep looking at the guy at the pumps in the screen cap. What kind of stance is that?
BL@KBIRD on January 7, 2009 at 4:03 PM
Right, because I want to subsidize inefficiency and excessive expense… and I really want to hand them money willingly as well as have them suck my wallet dry via taxes and bailouts.
So I try to do everything I can to support leeches on the economy and promote poor business practices whenever and wherever possible. Yeah, that sounds like me.
Because I’m a damned fool who wants to have poor business practices regulated by the Government and funded by my tax dollars; and I’ll do everything I can to maintain such a practice.
Yep, that’d be me. I’ll buy a crappier car with worse quality and poorer mileage, but be happy that by buying it I’ve helped prop up a business with excessive costs that will then siphon off tax dollars to keep running.
Or maybe I’ll buy another Nissan. Naah, good quality, low price, and good business practices? Who’d want someone like that in the market?
gekkobear on January 7, 2009 at 4:11 PM
So we should buy American cars, but not SUVs and trucks, when SUVs and trucks are the only place where American cars are competitive?
I looked at cars when I bought my first foreign car – a Jetta.
I have had zero problems in eight years with the Jetta and it the interior still looks more up to date than American sedans built today.
NoDonkey on January 7, 2009 at 4:21 PM
I’m not sure, but those of us who are confident in our manhood as well as practical are quite happy with our “golf carts”.
Small cars cost less to buy, less to gas up, less to repair, & generally less to insure. They’re easier to park & maneuver. And Hondas maintain their resale value.
jgapinoy on January 7, 2009 at 4:31 PM
Not always. Mercedes and BMW make small cars. Are they cheap?
Not if you have to make two trips instead of one.
Maybe generally, but a crappily built car is going to cost more to repair no matter what size it is, and it’s going to cost more to repair a little luxury car than it is a standard SUV.
I will give you that. I need a space the size of a tractor trailer to park my Pilot. I’ve never had a large car before.
Good to know since I have a Pilot, but I generally drive a car so long the resale value is irrelevant. By the time I’m finished with it, I donate it.
NoDonkey on January 7, 2009 at 4:36 PM
I bet that little prius will cost you an arm and a leg. Sorry.. I don’t care about little cars… especially foriegn when people are complaining about buying overseas. Cars are part of that problem!
jp, small cars are only easier to take care of when you are in warmers States.. TX, NV, FL, CA etc. Take a Toyota and Honda in a colder State and they are just hockey pucks in the driveway. Also they get stolen more then most vehicles.
Food for thought.
upinak on January 7, 2009 at 4:36 PM
I fully expect President-elect Obama to utilize a Prius motorcade.
Right after he brokers peace in the Middle East.
NoDonkey on January 7, 2009 at 4:51 PM
What do you think would be more heavy… prius? or the bullet proof glass they have to put in it?
upinak on January 7, 2009 at 4:55 PM
This discusson is like the one on taxing fat people for being fat. Thats a NY kindof idea. Fat people are not picked on in europe. Why are they discriminated against in the USA. The same people picking on SUV’s and fat people would never think of picking on gay or black people but hey get a fat person with an suv and have at it. Where is the ACLU when you need them. This suv/fat thing is pure stupidity. It’s the insurance companies behind this so they can charge high insurance premiums and not pay the health care costs. Harassing SUV and fat people makes them drive the SUV more to get more food. It’s a vicious cycle. It does not work.
kanda on January 7, 2009 at 4:55 PM
My new SUV costs less to insure (even with collision coverage) than my 7 year old sedan, and only slighty higher than my 25 year old Jeep.
Vashta.Nerada on January 7, 2009 at 4:58 PM
The whole point of this discussion is the price of gas. I’d trade in any SUVs you’ve got unless you are a well-to-do individual or someone who drives very little.
keep the change on January 7, 2009 at 5:46 PM
We have got a (relatively) free country. Let’s keep it that way.
Johan Klaus on January 7, 2009 at 7:05 PM
Because Congressmen who are not “of the Reagan bent” are generally in hock to the envirowhacko-socialist-left. There may be be some exceptions, but you are not going to find free-market (read Freedom) thinking in the Democratic Party. The Dems are going to force us all to drive econoboxes.
MrLynn on January 7, 2009 at 7:41 PM
You’re absolutely right, nobody has to justify anything to a petty snot-nosed (I believe this was the word you were intending to use) fucker like me. This petty snot nosed fucker served his country in combat, and now can’t even so much as throw a football all for the cause of serving selfish, fake-rich, elitist, snot-nosed fuckers like yourself.
I personally don’t give a damn what you buy, drive or do or whatever. You want an SUV, more power to you, make up for that inadequacy in any way you can, fella.
That being said, you’re going to hear my opinion as a result of all the asshats in SUVs riding my ass in the slow lane for going 5 under the speed limit in a blizzard. You’re still going to hear my opinion as a result of all these women driving a vehicle they can’t accurately control. You’re most definitely going to hear my opinion about how I think you’re trying to make up for a 2 inch penis by owning an SUV.
Using the resources until they’re dried up isn’t a bad thing. Using oil until we run out is fine and dandy with me, but wasting it is simply stupid. And 1 SUV wastes more oil per year than 3 full size cars. Purposely wasting a natural energy source just so you can joyride with your metro buddies in your oversized penis enlarger…..that’s real impotence. Dumbass.
leetpriest on January 7, 2009 at 7:42 PM
I can grasp it. Can you grasp $7/gallon gas? If not, I’m sure you’ll make good use of your feet. Wave at me when I drive by in my Civic.
On that note, it’s just sexy to be able to live on a $30/month Fuel budget.
leetpriest on January 7, 2009 at 7:47 PM
I hadn’t known that serving in combat bestowed the right to condescend and dictate to others.
OTOH, most injured vets I know don’t use their wounds as a sop to claim moral superiority on unrelated topics.
JohnTant on January 7, 2009 at 8:30 PM
Ha Ha I can relate to that. Here in North Carolina I get the finger from most of the folks for only going 5 mph over the speed limit. This happens to me everytime I go out except on Christmas. Yep it’s mostly SUV’s and that includes women. I moved here from NY and it never happened up there. Unless it’s some sort of secret North Carolina “howdy yankee”. I have learned that laughing at them when they give you the finger really riles ‘em up. I guess its a serioud thing down here.
Next thing I have to learn is not to use directional signals as it gives fair warning I’m about to change lanes. The rule down here apparently is wait until a vehicle is about to pass then turn into that lane at the last minute going slightly slower. Apparently the North Carolina vehicles have faux directionals cause none of them seem to work.
The other cool thing is down here they don’t have accidents. They have wrecks!! Well with the way they drive I can see why.
kanda on January 7, 2009 at 8:36 PM
But my “crappy aluminum can” gets 24MPG on the street and over 30 on the highway and has not needed any service other than routine maintenance. Three years into its life, it has no squeaks or rattles. Oh, and it isn’t aluminum, by the way — the skin is tensile stainless steel. Last but not least, your friend’s son didn’t die in my car — I’d sure know about it if he did.
Now, if you want to talk about aluminum, let’s talk about my Chevy Vega, with the sleeveless aluminum engine, and the iron pistons, which would seize up for 10-15 minutes every time I turned the engine off (including at the gas pump). I’m surprised my girlfriend married me — on our first date, she had to hold its oil-fouled spark plugs so I could clean them… It’s why I gave up on GM. I used to be such a buy-American guy…
Thankfully, we live in America, where everyone (except those who work at the Big 3) can drive any car they can afford, and quite a few they can’t. Every cat his own rat.
unclesmrgol on January 7, 2009 at 9:19 PM
You obviously didn’t take I-495 around DC then.
Going only 5mph over the speed limit will get you run off the road on the beltway. A finger on the beltway is how we say “top of the morning!”.
NoDonkey on January 7, 2009 at 9:46 PM
You know, if you’re going to have a discussion you really ought to stick to things that are provable and sensible, and avoid outright, obviously-made-up bullshit like “1 SUV wastes more oil per year than 3 full size cars.” That’s not even plausible. And what the hell do you know about anybody’s penis, when all you can see is the same sans-serif font we all use???
Personally, I hate driving behind SUVs, and it ticks me off when I have to wait while some middle-aged woman who can’t even handle a Civic properly tries to maneuver her behemoth truck into a parking space. However, the reason we have to put up with them is CAFE standards. People want to drive cars that are comfortable and safe and have room for their families, and since auto manufacturers are not permitted to control the mix of their automobile fleets, they’ve resorted to making trucks. I had four kids; you cannot fit four kids into a Civic. You can barely fit two kids into a Civic, and it’s truly uncomfortable when you’re on a road trip. If you want to get mad at somebody over SUVs, get mad at Democrats.
philwynk on January 7, 2009 at 10:19 PM
Regarding Ed’s question:
1) Hardly anybody understands why the price of oil went up like it did, nor why it went down like it did. They’re not going to make decisions based on sensible economics because they don’t understand economics.
2) Gas prices are not really part of the equation when one’s buying a car. Gas MILAGE is, but it’s secondary to comfort and safety, especially if one has the kind of income that can afford a $30K vehicle. Gas prices come into the equation when they become enough of a factor to cause pain — and they leave the equation just as quickly when the pain subsides. We simply take the affordability of gasoline for granted, because it’s always been affordable.
philwynk on January 7, 2009 at 10:25 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090107/ap_on_bi_ge/oil_prices_37
Oh look, oil is down to $44/barrel. Reserves are up, and companies are leasing tankers to store crude at sea.
What’s that about “$7 gas?”
cs89 on January 7, 2009 at 10:31 PM
Oh, I forgot to mention: $7 a gallon gasoline? Using up all the resources available on the globe? Not going to happen, not in your lifetime, or your kids’ lifetimes, or their kids’ lifetimes. Not unless the Democrats keep control.
We have more oil right here in the US than all the known reserves of the 12 largest oil-producing nations combined — and practically none of it is reflected in current oil reserve figures. Just the Piceance Basin alone, in Colorado, would double known oil reserves worldwide if it were counted. The technology to obtain it without grinding up the Rocky Mountains is just around the corner (Shell has a pilot plant that’s extracting shale oil in situ at $25/bbl.) And that’s just us. The Athabaskan shales in Canada have as much oil as the entire Saudi oil field. Venezuela has another massive oil shale deposit. None of this shows up in oil reserve figures.
The notion that we have to rush to get away from using fossil fuels is pure, unadulterated hocum, foisted on the credulous and the ignorant to scare us into joining World Socialism. Oil remains the cheapest, most plentiful source of power on the planet, and its use continues to make economic sense, and will continue to do so for quite a while.
philwynk on January 7, 2009 at 10:31 PM
SUV’s use 40% more fuel than average passenger cars, they use about 65% more than my non-hybrid Civic. Not to mention that the engine on an SUV requires twice the amount of oil that the engine on a normal 4 cylinder passenger vehicle. In addition to that, passenger cars have a transaxle (if automatic) that is lubricated by transmission fluid. An SUV with 4wd uses gear oil for the front differential, the rear differential, and the transfer case. Some SUVs require non-synthetic gear oil. Add that all up, and it’s right at or just over 3 of my cars to your 1 SUV in oil use.
Actually, when I type in the text box on HA, it’s displayed as the Courier New font, which does indeed have serifs. But that’s neither here nor there. I know as much about your penis as you do mine. A little play on words for you there, but you did start with the petty fucker and impotence comment. Take a shot at me, I’ll take four or five at you. I’m sure you’re aware of how that works.
Then why not get a minivan? They’re lighter, have smaller tires, and have a smaller engine, thus giving them better gas mileage. They’re far less expensive, and have equal or sometimes more seats. They’re far safer than an SUV due to the center of balance being higher on an SUV, allowing it to have a greater tendency to tip over. They just don’t look cool. They’re just not “in”.
My anger is appropriately placed, but I agree that there are far more Obama stickers on the back of some hybrid pinko SUV. If people were all a little more fiscally aware, the SUV wouldn’t survive
leetpriest on January 7, 2009 at 10:57 PM
Israel vs. Hamas, OPEC production cut threats, possible Iraq withdraw followed by possible invasion and takeover by Iran or Al Queda.
All it takes is the right chain of events.
I agree we need to suck it up until we get the last drop. If we don’t have another world war in the next few years, we’ll undergo a nice big population increase. So in my or my kids lifetime? Maybe not, but it doesn’t hurt to be ahead of the curve. I’m not especially worried about the resource being clean, but a little more concerned with it being renewable, cheap, and not made from food.
leetpriest on January 7, 2009 at 11:07 PM
leetpriest on January 7, 2009 at 10:57 PM
Minivan vs. SUV impact, IMO, SUV wins. More mass, higher bumpers, etc.
As to minivans & seating capacity- almost no minivans have 8 seats like my suburban (most have 7, I often need 8). Some fullsize SUVs will seat 9, if you go for the bench in front.
Also, minivans don’t have the snow traction of a nice big 4wd truck. As it’s my money, I’ll buy what I want that meets my needs.
cs89 on January 7, 2009 at 11:31 PM
Apparently Ed has never heard of the free market. Heaven forbid people should buy some American products from the hated Detroit, my home town. Stuff it buddy.
echosyst on January 8, 2009 at 2:35 AM
Events aren’t lessons; they’re just events. They don’t come engraved with the lessons you attach to them.
You write as if it was the same Americans who were looking for a new vehicle in each case, and as if the only difference between the two sets of circumstances was the price of gasoline. Have you considered that one reason some of the SUVs have regained some of their popularity is that they’re now, suddenly, much cheaper than they used to be?
Kralizec on January 8, 2009 at 3:02 AM
When people say something like “we’re running out of oil” I always wonder what their smoking.
DFCtomm on January 8, 2009 at 4:22 AM
Not quite true. You left out one important thing. Actually, suddenly credit is available again. The car companies are giving away the SUVs it’s true. It is also true most SUV production has been halted. It’s going to be get a small car or nothing unless you want a van or truck. Vans and trucks are earmarked for extinction by the new cafe standards. Meanwhile in the rest of the world pollution reigns supreme. What we are doing here with cafe standards is insane. What we are doing with oil drilling is insane. What we are doing with Nuclear power plants is insane. What we are doing with coal plants is insane. Energy is the backbone of our civilzation. It we keep this up we’ll be going back to the stone age.
kanda on January 8, 2009 at 5:47 AM
I know I’m verrrry late to this thread but feel compelled to add this tidbit. The USA’s imports it’s oil from the following countries(from most to least) as follows: Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico and Nigeria.
red131 on January 8, 2009 at 7:58 AM
More mass = greater impact. I wouldn’t call that safe. As I mentioned before, you’ve got a significantly greater chance to tip over in an SUV.
So next time you get in a wreck with your suburban, and your kids fly out of the window and the retarded middle-aged hussie driving the other useless SUV (while simultaneously texting her husband that’s cheating on her that she’s on her way home from martini drinking with all the other unhappy wives of investment bankers) that your “oh so safe” SUV plowed into tips over onto your kids and turns them into freeway pancakes, maybe you’ll figure it out.
But probably not, because what will all your buddies at work think if you’re not cool like them with their SUVs.
Some minivans come with a bench in the front. Most minivans have 2 front seats and 2 rows of back seats, seating 3 to a row. Do the math, genius.
So you intend to go offroading in the snow? I guess most of the rest of the country just offroads in snow all day, making the SUV an ultra-necessity, right? Wrong! Driving on ice and compacted snow with 2 independent axles is exactly the same as driving on ice and compacted snow with 1 independent axle/transaxle. Unless you have tire chains on, there is no such thing as “traction” on ice and compacted snow. Anyone that’s ever driven a HMMWV (which takes a crap on your suburban in terms of traction) can attest to this.
Not to mention the fact that when you slide in an SUV whatever you hit (unless you’re lucky enough not to tip over) will be hit much harder than if you were sliding in a little tiny passenger car.
leetpriest on January 8, 2009 at 11:14 AM
In a free country, economics is a major factor in the purchase of an automobile. The Europeans drive small cars because fuel is in the ten dollar per gallon range and in part because many roads are so narrow. Of course, the reason that fuel is so expensive is because of the exorbinate amount of taxes on the fuel.
Johan Klaus on January 8, 2009 at 11:17 AM
Apparently you and your city have never heard of a free market either. In a free market, the government doesn’t bail an entity out that’s failing.
Tell your hometown to start making affordable cars that match the competition.
leetpriest on January 8, 2009 at 11:25 AM
I’ve looked at several minivans and SUVs over the years. Don’t remember ever seeing a 3-across bench in front on a minivan, from Dodge caravan infancy to today.
Can you name one?
Back two rows- usually 2 seats in the middle row, 3 in back.
2+2+3=7, at least in the math classes I went to. Some minivans do have 3-wide seating in the middle- if your butt is the size of an 8-year old and you love the feel of your brother’s elbow in your ribcage.
BTW, there are more minivans than SUVs in the parking lot at work- and even more cars. “Coolness” isn’t really a factor here.
cs89 on January 8, 2009 at 11:29 AM
And, on snow and ice, I can feel the difference in traction the instant I switch from 2 to 4wd.
Are you seriously arguing that a 2wd minivan will go down a snowy highway as well as a 4wd SUV?
cs89 on January 8, 2009 at 11:31 AM
leetpriest
I just came up with a great reason to love my SUV.
Because it pisses off self-righteous, preachy, know-it-all, environmental prigs like you.
This is just classic:
Wouldn’t you just love to run the world and tell us all how to live our lives, down to what toothpaste we brush our teeth with at night.
Well, it’s not happening. I suggest you “Accept the things you cannot change.”
NoDonkey on January 8, 2009 at 11:32 AM
Obama’s whole argument about gaz-guzzling SUVs has a most serious flaw in it: why doesn’t he suggest instead that American companies make them with manual gearboxes instead of automatic? According to my father, cars and trucks with manual transmission take less gas than those with automatic transmission. As I’ve noticed, 90 percent of American-made cars and trucks use automatic, unlike most European and Japanese-made vehicles, which have manual available, yet if they are sold in the US, it’s usually only the automatic ones.
I think it’s time to demand that more American-made vehicles start to use manual transmission. Vans, for example, could use it. Take a look at the Citroen Jumpy, for example. It has a 5-speed manual gearbox. Manual transmission is better for when you’re travelling across slopes and hilly areas. I think that’s what American SUVs need now. There are some American cars that are starting to use manual (the Chevy Aveo and the Chrysler PT Cruiser), but even SUVs and vans big and small need it too. I think it’s time to start demanding manual transmission for more American-made SUVs and vans.
Avi Green on January 8, 2009 at 11:40 AM
I thought the serious flaw was that he travels about in a vast caravan of gas-guzzling SUVs.
Yes, I know he has reasons. So do I.
Agree and I prefer manual. My four cylinder Jetta has a good amount of zip because it’s a manual and it’s easier to control when it gets icy.
Unfortunately, a gear shift gets in the way of cell phone use, eating burgers, texting people and drinking out of the Big Gulp and it’s a pain in traffic.
State licensing requirements are so lax, that people can barely drive as it is. Automatic transmissions make it easier on them.
I would buy another manual transmission car of any model, for one thing, they’re cheaper. But I don’t think the demand would be there for them, which is why they’re rarely offered. You can barely get a compact anymore that’s manual.
NoDonkey on January 8, 2009 at 11:48 AM
Ummmm, maybe just maybe its the fact that it’s winter, and a particularly cold and snowy winter at that. And maybe this has caused folks to flock to large 4WD SUVs for the security (real or imagined).
MechEng5by5 on January 8, 2009 at 11:56 AM
leetpriest,
Just looked around online to see if maybe more 8 or even 9-passenger minivans have come out since I was in the market. The Honda Odyssey still has a “third” itty-bitty seat you can stick in the middle of the second row to bring you up to 8, and Toyota has a Sienna 8-passenger. There may be a few others out there, but I just loved this gem in a review on epinions:
Yeah, I’ll get right on trading in for one of these.
sarc/
cs89 on January 8, 2009 at 1:07 PM
Evidence of a lapse of intellectual integrity, this.
Leetpriest’s original claim was “more oil than three FULL SIZE CARS.” As soon as he’s challenged, he swaps to 40% more (which is 1.4x, not 3x) than an AVERAGE sized car, which is not a full size car, and mentions his Civic, which is a sub-compact car, not a full size car. He says the crankcase holds 2x (not 3x) more than his sub-compact (not a full-sized car.) Then he starts spluttering about gear oil, which get changed once if at all in the lifetime of a car, and thus barely has any impact at all, statistically speaking, on overall oil usage, even if the size of the gear housing is humongous, which it isn’t.
In other words, I was right. His original claim was obviously-made-up bullshit. He admits it simply by trying to defend it.
Leet, son, you really do have a lot more credibility if you simply say “Ok, I was exaggerating, sorry.” Learn from this.
I do know how it works, only I wasn’t the one who made the comment about impotence or called you petty. That’s the problem with eye-for-eye retribution, the collateral damage can get ugly.
No need to suck the last drop, especially since so much oil (about half) gets turned into nifty plastics and jet fuel. We’re really already way, way ahead of the curve, looking into fuel cells and nuclear fusion as we are. Those will come into common use as soon as they make economic sense. This is the part so many enviros simply don’t understand; there’s no conspiracy to suppress alternatives, they’re just less efficient so far. As soon as something comes along that truly makes economic sense, we’ll all abandon oil overnight. No force will be necessary.
philwynk on January 8, 2009 at 4:38 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4