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 Next »
Umm… not sure this is a meaningful statistic:
“Trucks and sport utility vehicles will outsell cars for the first time since February, according to a December report”
Trucks and SUVs always out sell other vehicles during the winter months. A meaningful comparision would be to compare SUV and Truck purchases this month to previous Decembers. Or considering the change in economic fortunes, perhaps compare the ration of SUV and Trucks to other vehicles for previous Decembers.
Now the situation might be as the author contends, but it also might not, because instead of giving a meaningful statistic, the author is simply using a meaningless statistic as a lead into their predetermined position.
Sackett on January 6, 2009 at 2:48 PM
Puhleeze beththebaker…I can see the occasional delivery, especially for someone in your line of work…but prove it to yourself…check out a mornings commute on any highway in the United States. Unless we have a huge Deliveries Market that drives our economy, I would guess that most people just like big vehicles…Fine…no argument with that…but dont get upset when the government doesnt want to give you more candy…
CapitalistPig on January 6, 2009 at 2:48 PM
From the discussion it appears that americians in general need to relearn the fine art of MINE YOUR OWN BUSINESS. it appears that americians have become a bunch of busybodies that have no concept of individual freedom.
unseen on January 6, 2009 at 2:51 PM
You know, the laws of physics and the laws of economics haven’t been repealed, Ed. We drive gasoline and diesel powered vehicles because it is cheaper per gallon to drive them than it is to drive a Prius. For all the gnashing of teeth that we need green alternatives, there is no such thing that can be produced on a massive scale for the same inexpensive prices as gasoline engine powered vehicles. All the enviro-tripe to the contrary, gasoline is the best source of personal transportation in the world today, and until some kind of electrical power or fuel cell replaces it with appropriate infrastructure to make that fuel convenient, oil and gas will power our world far into the next century.
The use of electricity produced by a steam turbine Rankine Cycle heat engine will never be more than 25% efficient at using the heat stored in oil, coal, or anything else which burns to make electricity. The use of natural gas and gas turbine engines may be more efficient (not my area of expertise, but I could figure it out if I had to), but not by much.
You want electrical efficiency? Support nuclear power now, immediately, and demand science be used to handle waste and power conservation issues instead of touchy feely “feelings” about where and how the Earth might be suffering. We cleaned up our water and air in the 70s. The pollution in those days was 20 times worse than what we live with today. It worked because science was used, not feelings. Science and the Economics of Power Generation are the ONLY things which should guide our energy policies today, to keep poor people working, and get them to work on time to feed their families. We need to drill domestically and off every coast. Texas has zero aesthetic problems with oil rigs offshore, and all you Yankees in Cape Cod need to get over yourselves about your beachfront property and the view. Our views are just fine here in TX. And our gasoline is cheaper as well. You want to use wind to take some load during those times, fine. But recognize that unless you cover almost every square foot of prime wind power real estate with wind turbines, to the exclusion of flying planes to most cities in this country, you aren’t going to make a huge dent in the power supply for this country, and the aesthetics of the land of windmills will need to be accepted all over this country. All you NIMBY Yankees need to accept new power line towers in your backyards too.
Any solution to power shortages in this country needs to follow the laws of Physics and Economics, and has nothing to do with anything that comes out of a politician’s mouth.
Quit supporting stupid non scientific policies which attempt to defy the laws of physics, whether you are an R or a D, and we’ll all be better off.
Subsunk
Subsunk on January 6, 2009 at 2:51 PM
We are the government. We tell them what laws to enact, or at least that is how it is supposed to work. Sedan drivers are no less stupid than SUV drivers. I see plenty of idiots driving both recklessly. The point is that different folks have different needs for passengers, children, cargo, etc. and CAFE has eliminated the station wagon and large sedans, so people who need the space bought the only viable alternative, the SUV. Buy what you need or want, and you won’t get a complaint from me – all I ask is the same consideration.
Vashta.Nerada on January 6, 2009 at 2:53 PM
You can get some screamin’ deals on trucks and SUVs now. I wish I was buying.
My 05 Tahoe gets over 20 mpg, has Stabilitrack and traction control with auto 4 wheel drive. I purposely tried to put it in a sideways slide with all the snow we have, and it pulled itself right out of it. …and I can get 8 people in it if needed.
I pulled a tree hugger in a VW Rabbit out of the ditch on I-84 the other day with my 4×4 Silverado. He almost wouldn’t let me do it…that was hilarious.
Wyznowski on January 6, 2009 at 2:53 PM
And again, why should I have to keep subsidizing people chugging alonng at 6MPG in their Hummers and Excursions???
CapitalistPig on January 6, 2009 at 2:41 PM
How exactly are you “subsidizing” people driving whatever they choose?
Are you paying their gas bill? Every gallon they pump sends gas taxes to the National Highway Trust Fund, etc. The “Big Oil” companies pay taxes, leasing fees etc. to the govt.
I could be driving my Suburban in a circular route around your city 8 hours a day, every day, without costing you one red cent.
Refute that with a single fact, if you can.
cs89 on January 6, 2009 at 2:55 PM
They are more likely subsidizing you, via gasoline taxes to pay for the roads.
Vashta.Nerada on January 6, 2009 at 2:57 PM
Yes, we elect representatives (who, in turn, appoint or hire bureaucrats) to make a determination about laws based on public safety in all areas of our lives. Automobiles are no different. .
Not every vehicle is street legal and not every person is given certain types of licenses (such as motorcycle or big rig licences) and for good reason. There are technical issues involved in deciding who and what can drive around on our streets and highways. Popular support for Hummers (or Miatas, for that matter) should not enter into it
Y-not on January 6, 2009 at 2:58 PM
Yes.
And an SUV is more likely to survive an impact with a fixed object as well.
MarkTheGreat on January 6, 2009 at 2:59 PM
My parents are close with another couple who each drive a Prius. The other couple refuses to ride in my Dad’s Expedition. When they all go out to dinner, they either follow along in the Prius (which means even more fuel is burned) or my parents have to squeeze into the back seat of their ridiculous car. If they hadn’t been friends for 50 years my Dad wouldn’t put up with it.
Next time I hope you leave that guy in the ditch!
flyfisher on January 6, 2009 at 3:00 PM
A moment of levity…
Do SUV owners choose their vehicles so they can drive themselves into walls? I thought they were buying them to drive us small car drivers up the wall.
;-)
Y-not on January 6, 2009 at 3:01 PM
Refute that with a single fact, if you can.
cs89 on January 6, 2009 at 2:55 PM
CapitalistPig on January 6, 2009 at 3:02 PM
If i settle down here in the northeast, it’ll be either an SUV or one of those subaru AWD wagons…im sorry but they handle the snow better than a few of the SUVs ive driven and better milage. if anything, this current economic climate (plus the extra harsh winter in certain places), spells AWD stationwagon boom
ernesto on January 6, 2009 at 3:03 PM
Move to Boston and take the train.
Y-not on January 6, 2009 at 3:04 PM
Owning a car or truck or both, is a right and a privledge. We are all very lucky to have one… green, 4×4, diesel guzzling hog or other. Remember that people!
upinak on January 6, 2009 at 3:08 PM
Then lets not be half assed about it and go all the way.. we need to be informed from the government as to what kind of vehicles we can buy and what we are entitled too.
As a family of four with a pet dog we take on trips, are we privileged enough to get an SUV or mini van or do we need to get a sedan? Also, with a stay at home parent.. do we really need two cars or should we just have the one..
seeing how driving is a privileged from the government..
DaveC on January 6, 2009 at 3:09 PM
Right here.
You may be paying more to fill your 10-gallon tank, but you’re buying your own gas. Not one penny out of your pocket affects the price of my 30-gallon fillup.
Yes, I know about “supply-and-demand” and the effect on prices. You may want to revisit the definition of “subsidize.”
cs89 on January 6, 2009 at 3:11 PM
SUV usage had nothing to to with $4/gal gasoline, and even if it did, they were putting in 25-32 gallons at a time, compared to 10-15 for you, so they were still subsidizing you.
Vashta.Nerada on January 6, 2009 at 3:11 PM
People who live outside urbanized areas need a vehicle with carrying capacity, even if the family has no children to haul around. When you must drive 15+ miles to the nearest town to shop, you’d rather not have to make 5 trips just to carry the groceries and merchandise home. If your commute to work is substantial too, then the best you can do is have a tiny car for commuting and a compact truck or SUV for utility purposes. If you can afford only one vehicle, you must go for the larger one.
Gas taxes are regressive against lower and middle income people. They are also discriminatory against working people who live beyond the reach of urban mass transit.
Better idea than gas taxes:) — Hike the vehicle sales tax on big city dwellers who have mass transit options. After all, don’t taxes from us outliers help sustain the subways and bus lines that take city folk to work? Why should rural folks always get the short end of the leftist stick?
petefrt on January 6, 2009 at 3:12 PM
Uou were likely being facetious, but some people really feel that way. But there are many of us for whom that lifestyle is completely unacceptable. There are good reasons some of us don’t live in New York, Chicago, Boston, LA or one of the other huge cities. I’ve tried it (Dallas and Chicago), so I know what I am talking about. It’s not for me. And it’s not the business of eastern liberals, Washington elites, and Hollywood drones to tell me how I ought to live. I have found that all too often those in the larger cities have no idea what life is like elsewhere, yet they are quick to proffer their point-of-view as the only viable one.
flyfisher on January 6, 2009 at 3:15 PM
Goodness gracious Ed, next are you going to tell us what temperature to set the thermostat at!?! Just kidding…
But it does remind me of a story my bf’s mom was telling us about the 70’s. She said there was always one house that was covered in lights, and that they would put em on, every night, if you can believe it! She said all the neighbors would gossip about them, and lots of them were very angry. I asked his mom if it was free. “Free?” Yeah, free, (says me) because as long as they were paying for it, it’s not illegal to buy it, and as long as they pay their bills, whose business is it but theirs? I mean, we’re talking about Christmas lights, right? Sheesh!
So what? So what if someone can afford to drive a gas guzzler when prices are so high? Isn’t that the point of life? I look at them and say good for you!
Califemme on January 6, 2009 at 3:17 PM
Another better idea than gas tax hikes: Ban non-commercial vehicles in urban areas. Let city folks ride buses, bicycles, Segways and subways.
And, while we’re at it, let’s hike the sales tax on meals in French restaurants.
petefrt on January 6, 2009 at 3:18 PM
CapitalistPig on January 6, 2009 at 2:41 PM
Ummm, no.
People like me (I drive a four cylinder Checy Cavalier most of the time) didn’t bitch about the gas prices. I changed some of my driving habits, cut back a bit on the weekened driving and reduced my driving speed to help compensate.
People used to sucking at the governmnet teat were the ones pissin and moanin about the gas prices. Those who are completely selfish were the ones crying the loudest. Those who wouldn’t do anything themselves to offset their pain (since they are so used to other people taking the pain for them) were the ones bitchin like little kids.
catmman on January 6, 2009 at 3:18 PM
Actually, if you re-read my post, all I was asking for was a specific test and licensing for large SUVs and trucks, similar to what is done for motorcycles and big rigs. I didn’t advocate for the government to create additional restrictions (on top of the ones that already exist) on what is sold or street legal.
Having said that, I would feel safer if there was a detailed study done on the safety of vehicles and I would be willing to accept additional restrictions on what vehicles I could drive on public roads if there was a compelling case for safety. I currently drive a convertible, but if there was a compelling public safety reason for convertibles to be banned so be it.
My concern is the mismatch of vehicles on the roads which manifests itself in accidents and visibility issues and my personal observation that many drivers of large vehicles do not know how to share the road with small cars.
If the solution is that we all drive Expeditions — fine. But right now it is not safe for those of us in small cars to share the roads with large SUVs and trucks, particularly when there is no special training for the drivers of those vehicles.
But instead of addressing public safety, this is about labeling small car drivers as econazis. Pretty sad, really. Almost as bad as the thread praising Obama for his smoking habit.
Y-not on January 6, 2009 at 3:19 PM
Precisely. I worked in DC over 20 years just to be able to move to these mountain woods. Now the totalitarians want to make rural living unaffordable. I for one resent it profoundly.
petefrt on January 6, 2009 at 3:22 PM
Yes, and thank you for realizing that. I was taking a shot at one of our resident libs.
Believe me, I know what it’s like in real America. I’ve lived in major cities that had excellent public transportation (Boston, Chicago) and I’ve lived in cities (Houston) and towns (mid-Indiana) without it. The absolutely worst time of my life was the 2 1/2 years I spent in Boston, during the first Gulf War, when all of my colleagues (I was in a university) were prattling on and on about it being great if gas went to $5 a gallon.
I really do defend everyone’s right to make their choices, but as someone who has only had small cars, I must confess that it is scary out there on the I-10 with the jacked up trucks and big SUVs.
Y-not on January 6, 2009 at 3:24 PM
levity..
DaveC on January 6, 2009 at 3:24 PM
I’m a girl… if I get your “pun.”
Y-not on January 6, 2009 at 3:26 PM
Sam Peltzman did several studies in the eighties and nineties on road safety, you can probably find several of them online. His premise was that speed variation was by far the largest issue in road accidents. He also did a study on seatbelts, which interestingly correlates with your impression of large vehicles – people who wore seatbelts were much more likely to be involved in accidents, due to a false sense of security.
Vashta.Nerada on January 6, 2009 at 3:27 PM
There already is that.. different classes for different size cars/trucks/semis..
are you arguing that senior citizens need a bus license for driving their bus sized RV around?
DaveC on January 6, 2009 at 3:27 PM
“Rural folks”–The last minority group that it’s “okay” to debase and ignore.
But I don’t believe I should get preferential treatment, or have a NAAHF (National Association for the Advancement of Hillbilly Folks). Hell, I make fun of myself, but the difference is, the SNL people believe their shtick.
Just another example of the hypocrisy of the left.
hillbillyjim on January 6, 2009 at 3:29 PM
Exactly!
What it seems to come down to is that a lot of people just don’t like those of us who hunt, fish, pull trailers and boats, enjoy ATV’s, have more than 1.2 children, live outside a mega-city, etc. By the way, I live in a reasonably quiet Memphis suburb, yet I am not ten minutes from cotton and cows. And I am making plans for my ultimate escape to an even more rural area. I want to live where you can actually see more than five stars at midnight.
flyfisher on January 6, 2009 at 3:31 PM
Thanks.
I did some digging earlier (to see if Ed was right in his premise about SUV safety) but the stuff I found was either from a source with a point of view (ie: bias) or a bit dated. Having said that, I did find that about four years ago the Institute for Highway Safety did a study showing that SUVs were not as safe as people assumed, but it seemed to have to do with side-impact (not just rollovers). I know I’ve heard it referenced many times that SUVs are involved in more fatal accidents (often of the passengers in the other vehicles), but I could not find the study or studies.
But I’ve been called essentially a pussy for raising this issue on this thread so I think I’ll call it a day.
Cheers.
Y-not on January 6, 2009 at 3:31 PM
When all the idiots talking on their cell phones, putting on their makeup, reaching for their starbucks, etc, stop trying to run me off the road or even into the river every morning while I drive my children to school, then I MIGHT think about trading in my paid for 2003 GMC Yukon XL. Until then, guzzle guzzle!
pannw on January 6, 2009 at 3:34 PM
Stop with everything in America being a Privilege! We are a free people! Nobody “bestows” privilege on us! We are free and our lives are free and we have rights to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness! Good grief we are so far from our founding fathers! You wish for a Nanny State to hand out PRIVILEGE to you! GROW UP! You are free! Think about that for a moment! Stop taking it for granted! Stop giving it away! Driving is a Privilege my ass!!!
sabbott on January 6, 2009 at 3:35 PM
AMEN! Our ancestors would have literally gone to war
over the infringements on freedom we now take for granted.
flyfisher on January 6, 2009 at 3:41 PM
Attention span of gnats r us.
Entelechy on January 6, 2009 at 3:42 PM
The question was, of course, rhetorical. As you know, rural folks always get the short end of the stick because they don’t vote Democrat.
petefrt on January 6, 2009 at 3:44 PM
It looks like Ed has once again bought into liberal premises. As well as a few commenters.
Sigh.
misterpeasea on January 6, 2009 at 3:45 PM
Ed, you live in Minnesota: want to drive a Pious?
My Volvo AWD treats snow like it’s not even there – my neighbour’s Toyota? Parked.
Paul Murphy on January 6, 2009 at 3:46 PM
Maybe they wouldn’t hate us so much if we just did as they said, living and thinking as they do.
I’d sooner fight than switch.
petefrt on January 6, 2009 at 3:48 PM
Of course.
Yeah, that and they don’t buy into the victim mentality and scream bloody murder over every perceived or real slight. They just “hitch up their britches” and “get ‘r done.”
hillbillyjim on January 6, 2009 at 3:51 PM
Lesson for our politicians to learn:
Americans don’t want to be stuffed into tiny “spam in a can” cars.
RJL on January 6, 2009 at 3:53 PM
That said, I can respect your view. Smaller car drivers have no more authority to direct larger car drivers to downsize than large car owners can direct small car owners to upsize. Both can argue on the grounds of safety, but the decisive issue is economic freedom.
petefrt on January 6, 2009 at 3:55 PM
Are automakers trying to clear out inventory? I would. No doubt automakers know that high gas prices will be back. The smart thing to do would be to get the SUV’s out the door while they can and get ready for high gas prices with more fuel efficient sedans and smaller more efficient SUV’s.
Theworldisnotenough on January 6, 2009 at 4:01 PM
The automakers are making deals to clear out inventory.
roux on January 6, 2009 at 4:02 PM
Over the past two quarters or so largish vehicles like SUVs have been selling for less and smaller cars/hybrids have been selling for more. I don’t think in that environment it’s surprising to see a demand shift toward the lower price alternative.
Crossover vehicles were designed to address the SUV/Small car debate. Not having read the Edmunds story, I’m wondering if crossovers were counted as a SUV or car for the purposes of the comparison.
On the larger issue, drive what you want.
JohnTant on January 6, 2009 at 4:04 PM
Last week I bought a brand new F-150. It has a V-6 and they knocked $7k off the price of the vehicle. I did the math and at $4 a gallon I’d have to drive my truck 4.5 years at my current rate to make up the difference in price between it and one of the more “economical” cars that gets 35mpg. Since we’re not at $4 a gallon currently every fill up is moving that break even date back a little further.
Now with a 6 year 60k mile bumper to bumper warranty on my truck I have worry free, very safe driving for quite a long while.
Who didn’t learn what lesson?
bj1126 on January 6, 2009 at 4:05 PM
Oh and my calculations didn’t even account for the differences in amount paid on interest in the obviously larger loan I would have had to take out to buy the economical car.
bj1126 on January 6, 2009 at 4:06 PM
We went through the scare in the 70’s where everyone downsized to small cars; learned that lesson well. American’s, in general, prefer larger vehicles. Not everyone has access to subways or other forms of rapid transit. Since congress wants to design our cars, they need to design an SUV that can pull a large boat and still get good fuel economy. Until then we will hang on to our current SUV.
Rapunzel on January 6, 2009 at 4:19 PM
The dealership down the road from me has 3 used Priuses and cannot sell them.
I don’t get the Living in snow country, the #1 purchase you can make to improve your winter driving is snow tires, not a 4×4. When it snows, I’ll take the Odyssey with snow tires and VSA and ABS over my Chevy 1500 with ABS but no snow tires – unless I’m going out for doughnuts. :P
pt on January 6, 2009 at 4:22 PM
Try riding a motorcycle. I have had more than car pull into my lane, while looking straight at me.
Johan Klaus on January 6, 2009 at 4:26 PM
I don’t want the government to give me anything. I want them to know their place, which is most certainly not interfering with private industry or my choices. The government’s “place” is clearly outlined in the Constitution.
DrMagnolias on January 6, 2009 at 4:27 PM
Excellent comment and congratulations on the new F150. I hope you get years of enjoyment out of that truck.
Lucky bastard. (I want one)
wise_man on January 6, 2009 at 4:29 PM
Both can argue on the grounds of safety, but the decisive issue is
economicfreedom.petefrt on January 6, 2009 at 3:55 PM
Johan Klaus on January 6, 2009 at 4:30 PM
All you Pious and small car drivers, you know you’re killing da Earf and contributing to high gas prices by not riding motorcycles, right?
More than one of you? Get a sidecar. More than two of you? Well, sacrifices have to be made. (I love the passive voice.)
misterpeasea on January 6, 2009 at 4:31 PM
…ummmm…do WHAT, now????
How, exactly, do you come to this conclusion?
uncivilized on January 6, 2009 at 4:37 PM
All of you might look at some statistics on actual accident rates found in this study:
SUV market share – 21% and rising
Compact SUVs have the highest death rate
Pickups, as a group, have the highest death rate
Rollovers account for 24% of vehicle deaths
38% of rollover deaths occur in SUVs
In LTV-Car crash, 81% fatalities are car occupants
Only 15% car/van occupant deaths result from SUV/Pickup collision
And this doesn’t even account for the higher accident rate of massive vehicles due to poorer manueverability.
I walked away from a head-on collision with a drunk driver at a relative speed of 75 mpg; in a compact car (dodge neo to be exact). The other driver left the ER just 2 hours after me from her Saturn. I had a similar crash 30 years ago, wrapped in at least 2,000 pounds more vehicle, and got hurt far worse.
And before you say I wouldn’t have if I’d hit a big SUV, I’ll agree with you. However, the SUV driver would not have done much better, as the mismatch of bumpers with my smaller vehicle would have wedged under and lauched the bigger one into a rollover. I’ve seen that often enough. Of course, I’d have been squashed like a bug but how many of you SUV drivers want to roll in one, with all that weight landing on the flimsy top?
Yet I still don’t buy my cars in preparation of crashing them. And I can’t tell you how many times the maneuverability of my Camry kept me from finding out.
Keep making excuses; faux testosterone still is a mojor factor.
michaelo on January 6, 2009 at 4:40 PM
had to have some fun with that one :)
DaveC on January 6, 2009 at 4:40 PM
I think someone else brought a poignant point that most here are missing. You may have the freedom to get what you want, but don’t come bitching like a foreclosed idiot when gas prices inevitably shoots up again. Rampant consumption is NOT conservative at all. It is wasteful and just declasse, kinda like our Hollywood-driven culture.
Apologetic California on January 6, 2009 at 4:41 PM
You have no right to any product at any price. All you prissy whiners need to grow up.
When I stomp my gas pedal, I want to feel my kidneys compress. I don’t want an engine as effective as a gay cock in a whorehouse.
You want to complain about ’subsidies’? Fine. Enact the FairTax. All that BS is history.
Quit whining about the free choices of others.
LimeyGeek on January 6, 2009 at 4:42 PM
A great many lives would be saved on our roads, not by the kind of vehicle you drive, but if Americans were actually taught to ‘drive’, rather than ‘operate a motor vehicle’. Yes. There’s a fecking big difference.
The general US driving standard is unadulterated shit. We drive like we saw it on TV once.
LimeyGeek on January 6, 2009 at 4:45 PM
F YOU! If you want to buy you small econobox and then complain that you don’t “feel safe” go F Yourself! You made that decision of your own accord! You could have purchased a larger vehicle? Why didn’t you? Probably, I might guess because you have been cowered by the left and the anti-car, anti-oil movement! It’s time to tell these people to go F Themselves! Because if you don’t, they will tell you the same thing with laws that you are not going to like! As for those of you that are “scared”…go back under your covers and maybe mommy will make the bad man go away!!!
sabbott on January 6, 2009 at 4:45 PM
Yes.. it’s faux testosterone that drives me to larger cars because being over 6′ 2″ tall and size 15 feet, I have find a car/truck/van that will fit me. I have been in small cars. I do not like them. I get cramped after long periods of time. If I get an accidental with them, my legs will be severely broken because they are jammed into the dashboard.
I drive a bigger vehicle because of my body size and my chosen lifestyle(wink). I have the head room and leg room I need.
as for safety, no vehicle is %100 safe. deal with it.
I drove trucks because of my job at the time. And Pickups are plain awesome.
DaveC on January 6, 2009 at 4:47 PM
Not to mention that the snotty drivers of these gas-sipping euro fag-wagons drive like abject retards.
LimeyGeek on January 6, 2009 at 4:48 PM
America, you are a FREE PEOPLE! You don’t have to listen to safety NAZI’s or environmental NAZI’s who want to take away your FREEDOM! YOU ARE FREE PEOPLE! DON’T LET THEM TAKE AWAY YOUR FREEDOM! FREEDOM! Don’t give to the Nanny State! Don’t ask Government to solve your problems! Don’t look to Washington! Think about something! You are FREE! Think about that! Free! Do you really want to give that up to a bunch of idiots in Washington who promise you the world but deliver nothing? Freedom is the most precious of all gifts! What are you doing? You are giving it away! Wake the hell up!!!
sabbott on January 6, 2009 at 4:51 PM
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Johan Klaus on January 6, 2009 at 4:55 PM
I enjoy riding a motorcycle. Your Dodge Neon would easily kill me in a head-on collision. Shouldn’t you be considering the safety of motorcycle riders and sell that massive cage?
The lesson learned was that gas prices fluctuate and you can get a great deal on a truck or SUV if you buy after prices drop and before dealers figure out that they don’t have to discount by 30 percent to move their stock anymore.
People had the freedom to make choices on how they spend their own money. I celebrate that…no matter what car/truck/SUV they choose to purchase. Personal freedom begins with your pocketbook and your paycheck.
Asher on January 6, 2009 at 4:58 PM
Thank you! I love it. Actually I’m surprised at how much I like it having never owned a truck before.
bj1126 on January 6, 2009 at 5:03 PM
Dave, I’m 6′2″ (only size 12, though). I think you’d find a Camry plenty roomy, with plenty of room for your flippers. And gets about double the gas mileage. I’m not recommending SMART cars (street-legal golf carts, actually) for everyone, just rational vehicles.
Yes, it is your choice. But I was amazed at the amount of whining I put up with about gas prices for guzzlers like yourself- and will have to put up with again in a matter of months. And, in the meantime, your burning up the feedstock your grandchildren and great-grandchildren will be needing.
michaelo on January 6, 2009 at 5:14 PM
I will “come bitching” if our dumbocratically led government doesn’t stop blocking efforts to develop our own resources, and continues idiotic policies such as CAFE standards and ethanol subsidies. Everyone should expect, and plan ahead for, higher gas prices again, but our government is failing in its responsibilities if it refuses to take steps to keep us from being so vulnerable in the future.
hillbillyjim on January 6, 2009 at 5:16 PM
Over that past three years I have reduced my commute from 37 miles to 4 miles one way. I changed jobs twice and moved once. My fuel bill is ridiculously low now and I don’t need a death trap econobox either.
Pelayo on January 6, 2009 at 5:23 PM
Keep making excuses; faux testosterone still is a mojor factor.
michaelo on January 6, 2009 at 4:40 PM
And, in the meantime, your burning up the feedstock your grandchildren and great-grandchildren will be needing.
michaelo on January 6, 2009 at 5:14 PM
And here we enter an eco-nazi and femi-nazi singularity!
I’m surpised the thread didn’t implode with your all around naziness, smugness, and condescension.
catmman on January 6, 2009 at 5:30 PM
I’m pretty disappointed at the shrill name-calling and hyperbolic accusations directed at me by a couple of people on this thread. I tried to tread pretty carefully and state very clearly what formed the basis of the opinions that I expressed here.
I think people are forgetting that even in a state like Texas (where I enjoyed living, incidentally), there are a great many rules and laws governing the vehicles we drive and who is licensed to drive them on public roads. I was going to post the Texas Transportation Code pertaining to vehicle size and weight, but it is over 20 pages long. Why some people cannot accept the fact that the government, even in a red state like Texas, already regulates these things escapes me.
With the exception of the libertarians and anarchists on this site, I thought most of us accepted that we live in a society governed by laws and that we obey those laws, even laws that we don’t personally agree with all the time. Part of our role as citizens includes the right and obligation each of us shares to express our opinions about those things. It would be nice to do that civilly, especially on what is supposed to be an intelligent conservative site.
All I was trying to point out is that there are public safety issues at stake. I am open to the idea that careful study might reveal that the best solution is for us all to be driving larger vehicles, but I’d like to see that study first.
Y-not on January 6, 2009 at 5:33 PM
catmman, as a rock-ribbed conservative from the Goldwater days on, I find your comment hilarious.
Not once have I advocated mandating commen sense from the government; that’s a case of the asylum inmates defining sanity. What I am suggesting is that people make their personal choices with foresight in mind; something our Founding Fathers did and we need to get back to. Ben Franklin especially would have been appalled at our wastefulness.
michaelo on January 6, 2009 at 5:40 PM
Yeah. Not to mention here in Texas we got the future NAFTA highway full of non-insured, non-regulated Mexican 18-wheelers. Couple that with illegals that have never owned a car in their life and drive like total sh!t with no insurance and many times drunk out of their minds.
When I lived in NYC, I took the subway or walked. Here in the Dallas Metroplex I and my 2 small children will keep the gas guzzling minivan, thank you very much.
mrsmwp on January 6, 2009 at 6:01 PM
You are right.. it’s for the children ™
DaveC on January 6, 2009 at 6:30 PM
Wow, there’s certainly a lot of hostility on this issue. Each individual has the right (yes the right) to drive the vehicle that best suits their needs. My family owns a SUV and a sedan. When I get ready to purchase another vehicle to replace the SUV, I’m going to buy another {{gasp}} SUV. I will review the different choices and go for efficiency but I will select the size that best suits my needs.
There are those who drive the smaller vehicles and complain about their safety competing with the SUV’s and trucks on the highways. Personally in my trips to work I find it’s the smaller vehicles that dart in and out of traffic and attempt to get between me and the car in front of me, because silly me…. I leave the recommended distance between myself and the other vehicles. That space is apparently an open invitation to that small sedan to shoot right in there because that extra 2 or 3 seconds is valuable time saved. While I’m at it, apparently these same small sedans have optional equipment on them as well… like turn signals!! So before feeling threatened by larger vehicles, consider that it’s the driver not the vehicle. I have owned an SUV or van for the last 20 years, I’ve had zero wrecks, and zero tickets.
High gas prices? I didn’t like them of course, but like everything else forced on us, I had to pay it. I just adjusted my recreational driving and sucked it up!! While alternative energy needs to be explored and utilized, we have the capability to relieve our dependence on foreign oil right here in the good old USA, if the gas bags in Washington would do it. (there’s a thought, maybe we could harness all that hot air and use the energy) I recycle, reuse and am very conscious of how much electricity I use (I wash my clothes in cold water and dry them outside) and I’m as conservative as I can be with gas usage, but my vehicle selection is my business, my pocketbook. And until the government makes me drive something I may not choose to (yet another freedom of choice taken away) I will continue as I am.
For those who disagree with my choices, good for you, that means you got to make your own choice. We do still have that right.
ladyhawke53 on January 6, 2009 at 6:38 PM
Just a quick comment. I hope the Toyota Highlander out sells the Prius because I work for the Logistics part of Toyota that ships the Highlander.
That being said I totaled my 4WD truck 2 years ago. A deal I made with my wife was she got the next new vehicle. She got a new FJ Cruiser SUV from Toyota and I got her old Ford Escape.
Needless to say I miss my Truck! Watch what you promise!
Kevin in Southern Illinois on January 6, 2009 at 7:34 PM
Why are they even called SUVs? What the hell is ’sporty’ about them?
Reaps on January 6, 2009 at 7:48 PM
Where did you get those stats?
Everyone needs to read the forensics about auto accidents and their attendant casualties.
Everyone should drive a fuel efficient car, regardless of size. The main reason is that we are at war with islam, or islam is at war with us, and every dollar that goes into your tank goes to fund the jihad that will again attack us on our soil, and worse, it goes to fund the silent jihad such as mosques springing up all over the America.
Anyone who goes out and buys a pick up truck or a large SUV when they don’t actually need one, is not only a fool, which is their business, but is a also useful idiot, which is everybody’s business. While it pleases me to see the vainglorious get sucked dry at the pump, which they will and much worse next time, it does not please me to know that their money goes to the enemies of America. Gas, like cigarettes and booze and lotto tickets, it a stupid tax. It taxes the stupid by separating them from their money. We all need transportation, so we all need gas, but we don’t all need 4000 lbs of it or the gas required to push it.
Here’s a prediction: Israel attacks Iran. They have to. Speculators push the price to $150 barrel. That’s what speculators do. Tankers are hit in the Straight of Hormuz. Speculators will push the price of oil to $300 a barrel. Russia invades the Ukraine, while America is busy in the middle east. Speculators now push the price to $400 a barrel. That is only the start.
Putin, Chavez, Amadinejad, and the Saudis all benefit. Every enemy we have rejoices. But that’s okay. You want to ride up high in an SUV like some self-absorbed soccer mom.
keep the change on January 6, 2009 at 8:47 PM
Old namesTruth in advertising new namesThe Chevy
SuburbanPutinThe GMC
YukonChavezThe Ford
ExpeditionAmadinejadThe Chrysler
AspenRiyadhCheshire Cat on January 6, 2009 at 9:30 PM
Here’s another prediction:
Israel pounds the crap out of Hamas for maybe 10 days (3 weeks, tops) then retreats under international pressure after killing much of the leadership of Hamas. Iran stays out of it, and Israel decides not to start WWIII.
Iraq is more stable, we start transitioning out, but Iran keeps causing some trouble there. Iran develops nuclear weapons in the next 3 years, and Obama does zilch about it.
Oil bounces around $35-$75 dollars over the next couple of years. Gas stays under $2.50 most of that time.
I keep driving my SUV and smiling at the “smart people” who paid 3-5 grand more for a car that saves them a few hundred bucks a year.
(My prediction is more likely to be right, BTW).
cs89 on January 6, 2009 at 9:57 PM
How many people do you know that pay cash for a Lexus? Someone smart enough to save their money and pay cash for the vehicle in the first place would probably also be smart enough to forgo the luxury element of the vehicle, and go for the Toyota version. Or better yet, save even more money during the recession, take part in the American economy, and purchase a Ford Escape or a Saturn Vue or something, and get the vehicle at a steal.
You can’t really make the argument that if the companies bomb they won’t honor the warranties. Whomever buys them out will be forced to honor the warranties.
leetpriest on January 6, 2009 at 9:59 PM
Oh, and when the snow flies in the midwest I push “4wd” and go in to work whenever I need to without worrying about a few inches of snow.
cs89 on January 6, 2009 at 10:00 PM
I think I read in this thread it’s a “business tax writeoff.”
If that’s the case, he can afford to pay for it (upfront or over time) without cutting into the grocery money.
The rest of your comment is really funny. Do you seriously think somebody who can buy their spouse a Lexus SUV would consider a Saturn Vue an acceptable equivalent?
For my current needs and budget, new luxury cars are out of reach. I still think it’s true that “you get what you pay for,” and when I have the choice I’ll drive the Lexus. Forget the Vue.
cs89 on January 6, 2009 at 10:05 PM
A lesson not learned? Beg to differ. A lesson ignored!
Here’s to my diesel DuraMax with the “Allison” series tranny and the crew cab. Life is good,(and much safer).
There will be no excuses or apologies from me for owning it either.
hopefloats on January 6, 2009 at 10:16 PM
The price of oil spiked because the Fed went nuts with the money supply, effectively driving real interest rates negative. This also resulted in the dollar crashing. So oil wasn’t expensive, dollars were cheap. When the Fed knocked it off and allowed real rates to assume a more normal positve level, the price of oil in dollar terms fell back to a more normal level. Put another way, oil didn’t fall, dollars rose. The correlation between real interest rates and commodity prices is stunningly high, just like economic theory predicts it should be. So you don’t really have to worry about $150/bbl oil prices, unless the Fed gets another nutty notion to crank up the presses again.
jl on January 6, 2009 at 10:34 PM
We re-invoke Nixon again on oil, and give no protection to anyone involved in oil speculation. Every ski resort in Colorado has at least a quarter of the nearby town on a wiretap. The west coast is given similar treatment. The Sierra Club and Greenpeace are put on status similar to Hamas and Hezbollah. Taxes are completely cut on fuel. Detroit is fully nationalized. Greenbusting overtakes unionbusting in law firm specializations.
In short: It would get a lot of us closer to the end of environmental fanaticism, but we only would have golf carts to show for it.
I don’t want our cars to resemble what exists in second-world(Europe) or third world(China, India, Mexico). Keep your golf carts out of this country. Do not attempt to get in my (or about anyone with similar desires) way of affordable muscle.
Because the masses drive cars in the United States of America, not oversized golf carts. There are a few states in the South that would like to change that to our detriment.
Besides, it’s amusing to be able to have a Detroit-style car about the size of a Civic be able to pack more power per dollar.
sethstorm on January 6, 2009 at 10:52 PM
Buy the Lexus used, rip out the engine+transmission and put in a Detroit style engine block.
Or…
Skip the Lexus completely, get the matching car and start crafting the parts you need for the next 50 years. Follow that with laughter at the environmentalists.
sethstorm on January 6, 2009 at 10:56 PM
Rip out the I-4, put a 6 or an 8, and don’t call it a Lexus.
Toyota for all purposes and intents builds oversized golf carts.
sethstorm on January 6, 2009 at 10:59 PM
Oh no. I am not referring to this Hamas/Israel side show. I’m referring to the impending attack on Iran to stop the next holocaust from happening. When that attack comes, you will be paying $5-6 per gallon. It is the end of our economy as we have always known it. That attack will open a pandoras box, the ramifications of which are incalculable now, except for knowing one thing – oil will skyrocket.
keep the change on January 7, 2009 at 1:05 AM
Uh, no it doesn’t. Not only is it not every dollar, it’s not even close to being every dollar. It’s not even close to being half of every dollar.
xblade on January 7, 2009 at 2:26 AM
Ed, the people buying SUVs now didn’t forget about high gas prices. Most could probably afford to pay the list price for the SUV today but are only buying because the deal on the new vehicle is for thousands less. Current low gas prices are just a bonus. When prices go up, today’s SUV buyers will be able to afford to fill up by and large.
Now, the people who buy their trade-ins? That’s another story.
EconomicNeocon on January 7, 2009 at 8:09 AM
You’ve left out the obvious.
Try getting even one car seat into a compact car.
I have a Jetta and our baby will not fit in the back seat. The car seats are too large. My knees would be on the steering wheel.
Getting a car seat out of the Jetta is enough to throw out my back for the day.
So we bought a Honda Pilot. Plenty of room for the car seat. Plenty of room to easily get the baby in the car seat when she’s squirming.
Unless the government mandates that we go childless, there will always be a market for larger cars.
NoDonkey on January 7, 2009 at 8:26 AM
People rarely choose to drive into walls. Occassionally those walls leap out of nowhere.
MarkTheGreat on January 7, 2009 at 8:37 AM
By this logic, if you bought no gas at all, you would be subsidizing the SUV owners even more.
A subsidy means that you are handing money to someone. Buying less gas, and hence lowering the price for everyone is not a subsidy.
MarkTheGreat on January 7, 2009 at 8:39 AM
That’s the theory of the late Thomas Gold, a professor at Cornell. It has never been proved, however. I think there were some holes drilled in northern Europe to look for the hypothetical deep sources of new oil, but they were not found.
There have been instances of exhausted sites in the Gulf of Mexico refilling, presumably from still deeper reserves, but it still has not been shown that petroleum is actually being created within the Earth. Would that it were true!
MrLynn on January 7, 2009 at 8:49 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »