40 Is The New 30?

[Kernel Potter]

A friend of mine would buy or consider a minivan for its reasonable price, room, mpg, ride quality etc. but his wife absolutely refuses to have one. Seems the unscientific "data" holds true once again.

At least they're both smart enough not to get an over grown SUV that they really don't need and that isn't in the budget. I'd be willing to bet his wife would have no image issues being seen in a "manly" SUV, driving around town

They just recently bought a 28mpg(2008 numbers) Chevy Impala.

 

[Kestas]

Marketing people found out long ago that both men and women want a "manly" vehicle. Remember how the 88 Toyota Tercel Cutie flopped? Automakers no longer make any feminine cars.

 

[Whimsey]

Gee, some of us really do need those "gas sucking" vehicles. I have a wood working business and need the full size 1/2 ton truck I have. I need the space, not the "tonnage" capacity. So because of that I should be taxed out of existance. My wife was in a horrible accident back in 1992 while in a 1988 Mustang which saved her life. The two drivers in the other vehicles were not so lucky. One was driving a Toyota p/u and the other one that caused the accident was driving a Nissan p/u. Needless to say she's not too "crazy" about small cars. And the 88 Mustang was not a small light car by today's CAFE standards.

Since the accident she's been driving Explorers. They may use more gas but she feels safer and with our NE winter's she is definitely safer.

I'm older and it's really pathetic to see the government take over more control of our lives in the name of the "common good". How many government officials are going to drive around in small CAFE vehicles and live in tiny homes that are cold to "save the planet", NONE!

If gas is expensive then it should be up to the people to decide on the type of vehicles they want or need to drive, not the government dictating.

I guess I grew up in a different better and time.

Whimsey

 

[ToyotaNSaturn]

Originally Posted By: Kestas
Automakers no longer make any feminine cars.


Yes they do. It's called the Milan.

 

[jsharp]

Originally Posted By: oilyriser
If you're so adamant about higher taxes on SUV's, I can sell you one today, with a $10,000 penalty fee added to the regular price tag. Send me a PM if you want one, and I'll make the arrangements.

Amazing the hypocrisy in this attitude isn't it? "I want everyone else to pay high taxes because they don't *need* item X. But me, I'm a good little drone who knows what's best for all. So I should be exempt...

I have to say, it sickens me...

 

[88Dakota]

It all boils down to the fact that you have to influence demand directly. You can't legislate supply and hope people suddenly change their buying habits.

The most effective way to do this would be a gas tax. Nobody wants to say it, ESPECIALLY politicians. It's far easier to put it all on the auto industry's shoulders and come out looking like a hero.

A gas tax would

1.) Allow individuals to make important purchasing decisions based on their wants and needs weighed against the increased cost of gasoline.

2.) Allow the auto industry to produce based on demand, not legislation. This is good for every single car company in existence.

3.) Bring in extra tax money that could be put towards research and development of more efficient means of powering vehicles.

CAFE legislation does none of these things.

 

[Win]

Originally Posted By: jsharp
[

Amazing the hypocrisy in this attitude isn't it? "I want everyone else to pay high taxes because they don't *need* item X. But me, I'm a good little drone who knows what's best for all. So I should be exempt...

I have to say, it sickens me...


You sure got that right.

 

[Win]

Originally Posted By: 88Dakota

The most effective way to do this would be a gas tax.


You obviously haven't bought a gas guzzler in the last few decades. They're already taxed higher before you ever pump the first gallon of gas into them. I think it was an extra $1K on my GTO; don't recall how much it was on the Xj12.

It has no purpose other than to penalize people who buy these cars.

 

[Win]

Originally Posted By: Aldaris
Originally Posted By: MrCritical
They will legislate demand by strapping a $5000-$7500 gas guzzler tax on your next SUV purchase.
I'm in love...
If it could be a $500,000-$750,000 gas guzzler tax on SUVs and big trucks, that would be even better


What really jerks my chain is seeing these pictures on television of all these cars jamming the highways because they live 10 - 20 even

30 miles or more from where they work.

These people are too cheap or too good to live where they work, so they drive ridiculous amounts and whine and moan about the cost of gas and how the SUV's and big trucks are using too much of it and making them pay more. Even worse, those of us that are sensible enough to not drive a lot of miles have to pay excessive gas taxes to build and maintain the roads for these inconsiderate clods.

Want to save money on gas? Drive less. It's that simple. A $5000-7500 tax on commuters for every mile over 10 on a daily commute would be about right to punish these people who selfishly squander gas. $500,000 - $750,00 per annum would be even better.

 

[Jethro]

Trucks and SUVs are making 40+ mile round-trip commutes on a daily basis too, you know. It's not just us "whiny" car drivers.

 

[jsharp]

My reply to long commutes in low MPG vehicles is "so what." People who can afford it build ( and heat + cool ) 4000 sq. ft. houses for families of 2. Anyone think they "need" them?

I don't, but I don't care either. I've no envy of them nor any desire to tell them what they do or don't "need." If they can afford it then good for them...

 

[Jethro]

I don't know if you are replying directly at me, jsharp, but if you are you must not have read Win's post before mine.....

I live 20 miles from work. I never leave the jurisdiction of the City of Memphis, mind you, but I live a ways off. I live in a small apartment off of a extremely well-traveled main road. I'm not exactly a high-rolling suburbanite. I live where I do because there's less crime. I work where I do because I make more money. I'm sure there are many many many people who share my same situation... and still drive fuel-efficent cars.

Don't group me in with the suburban-mcmansion-dwelling, Hummer drivers....

 

[jsharp]

No, it was a general comment. Long commutes in low MPG vehicles and "need" are two things that always seem to come up in these discussions.

That was my way of saying I don't care much about either...

 

[Jethro]

Originally Posted By: jsharp
No, it was a general comment. Long commutes in low MPG vehicles and "need" are two things that always seem to come up in these discussions.

That was my way of saying I don't care much about either...


Yeah, exactly. I could get up an hour early and just take the bus to work, but I NEED my car. Hahahahaha.

 

[Jethro]

Back on topic... The rest of the developed world has already dealt with this problem. It's called "fuel taxes and surcharges" and "congestion charges"..... Ford, especially, has had NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER selling cars at profit in Europe.

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
but his wife absolutely refuses to have one.


Sure. Some women are a adamantine as men about the issue. They don't want to be labeled either ..and they're also just as willing to spend big bucks to shun the minivan image even though they're very practical and far more economical then a like sized Explorer (or like SUV).

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
Gee, some of us really do need those "gas sucking" vehicles.


Then you must own one. I'm sure, in future evolutions, you may consider buying a chassis cab from Toy or Nissan or whomever and having it fitted with a flatbed of smaller box that would suit your needs well. An IVECO flat bed may be more your liking in fuel economy and ultra long term ROI.

Quote:
One was driving a Toyota p/u and the other one that caused the accident was driving a Nissan p/u. Needless to say she's not too "crazy" about small cars. And the 88 Mustang was not a small light car by today's CAFE standards.


But this implies that just because you once stubbed your toe on a loose rock ..that you insist on poured concrete sidewalks with rebar. There are plenty of "safe" vehicles that are far more economical than a 4 wheeled air craft carrier.

Quote:
Since the accident she's been driving Explorers. They may use more gas but she feels safer and with our NE winter's she is definitely safer.


No AWD vehicles below that weight and economy class that qualify?

Quote:
If gas is expensive then it should be up to the people to decide on the type of vehicles they want or need to drive, not the government dictating.


This I surely agree with. Unfortunately, they won't let the market decide these things. If they really wanted fuel economy they wouldn't frustrate diesels like they have for the past 20-30 years. This has been a "managed" major aspect of our lives as it is. There's a reason why you see some many Explorers out there. They were relatively cheap and they provided TONS of jobs to many people. Lots of steel ..lots of axles ..lots of assembly ..and all for $269 a month with $2000 down at lease signing

 

[dwendt44]

What realy bits is that the working poor often don't have a choice as to vehicle choice or mileage.
They end up with what's available or what they can afford to buy used.
BTDT.

 

[Gary Allan]

Originally Posted By: dwendt44
What realy bits is that the working poor often don't have a choice as to vehicle choice or mileage.
They end up with what's available or what they can afford to buy used.
BTDT.


Well, although I don't necessarily disagree, our massive new car market, coupled with overall reliability improvements, tend to make the beater market a pretty good deal. The unfortunate reality is that you've got to be outside of the beater market to understand how good the beaters are in value. If you're "looking up" at beaters already ..then you probably can't afford them either.

Yes, BTDT

 

[kd5byb]

Originally Posted By: MrCritical
I'm all for free choice but how many of us really need an SUV? You can get as many or more people in a minivan, better handling, better mpg, easier getting in and out, and a lot harder to rollover.


No one really "needs" anything. Try this. Pick something and I'll bet someone can come up with why you don't really "need" it.

IE: my family of four doesn't NEED a house. We could live in a tent or a large cardboard box.

It's against the principles of freedom to question the wants of others by inquiring as to "need."

It's one of the reasons that Communism/Socialism failed: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

Who judged need? Not the individual who knows his situation best, but a corrupt, inefficient government who lined their own nests. No one could ever get what they wanted by hard work, so there was no incentive to work hard. The result was long lines for toilet paper and the Lada (prior to Fiat's involvement).

Every time we take choice away from the individual and give it to the Government (say, by CAFE), it is a step down the path to ruin.

later,
b