I'll just say that I met those "sense of entitlement" SUV owners before I saw the anti-SUV movement take off. The environmental part of the movement didn't become big until SUVs were common, but the attitude that causes half of the hatred already existed (and contributed to lots of people falling in love with SUVs).
It's too bad sports car drivers don't have more clout though. Soon they'll have been legislated out of existence.
is a single 20-something with no kids driving a Suburban. It just doesn't make sense. It also doesn't make sense that someone driving a gas-guzzling SUV would look down on someone driving a sedan and say the only reason they don't like SUV's is because they can't afford one.
I'm disappointed with the new IS. No stick in the sportier version? Electronic overkill? I think we need to get the S2000 team over to Toyota for a little sports car primer.
This was not supposed to be a free-wheeling discussion for/against SUVs. Just a comment from Karl on his blog about his article. Nonetheless.
Basically, SUV owners feel, rightly, that they are being singled out because their vehicles are the ones that will end up costing a lot more, not "all vehicles".
We all would like to have a massive beach house in Florida, a condo on a rooftop somewhere in Manhattan and a farmhouse somewhere upstate. As we would also like to have zero deductible on all our insurance and a billion dollars of coverage for everything. Mind you, all of us can have either of these. They are not stuff that you will need to use at most points of time but its nice to know that you have more. But the reason why a majority of people dont have either is because the 'state' of having more than required comes at a cost.
Most SUVs I see (maybe I live in the wrong place) have one, at the most 2 people at a time on perfectly paved level urban roads. I do not deny that they have off-road capability which is not available in other vehicles. Neither do I deny that they have tons of space not available anywhere else (a favourite of the SUV lovers, a Suburban can seat 9 and a good amount of luggage). They also have awesome towing capacity. But in the end these features, at least visibly are seldom utilized. An average American family I think has 2.2 kids I agree that when you need to haul a yatch or drop 10 people off at the airport, you need an SUV. but the essence is that for the major part of your drives, you will never utilize most of the features.
However, you are buying 'more' just so that you are assured that when you need it, you will have it. This 'extra' should come at a price, and that is fair! I am all for freedom of choice and a free market, as long as the freedom is absolute and not skewed towards one group!
A PZEV Ford Focus guy has given up the 'ability' to haul a yatch if he needs to (He will probably rent out an SUV when he needs to). He has also given up a lot more 'power'. So when it comes to emissions, it is but natural that given that he 'gave up' the choices, his cost at maintaining his car would be lower.
An SUV owner went for the big 4.5L engine. He will not use it 90% of the times (once again, MOST, will not use it 90% of the time. I have mentioned earlier that I have friends who are into mountain biking and other outdoors stuff and own SUVs to go to places where no other vehicles will go). Take one honest look around and assess for yourself how much of the 'utility' is actually utilized! I agree that they will be utilized 'sometime' but if you are going for an overkill, you made a conscous choice. And if you did, you will obviously be required to pay more for your choice. Thats what a free market is all about. Seeking exception for a certain class is distortion of the 'free-ness'. The emissions norms are uniform for all. If someone believes that he requires 'more', let him pay for it! Why should he not?
Once again, I never said that people do not need SUVs. Neither did I say 'ban SUVs'. All I said was, if you need the 'extra' stuff, pay for it! Why make associations and try to muscle your way into getting an exception in the name of freedom of choice? If you are letting someone have 'more' and also making his costs artificially low, and making the costs same for the guy who is has 'less', you are automatically tilting all choice in one direction. How is that freedom of choice?
Personally, I think there are a lot of self-righteous environmentalist out there with few or no kids driving around in mini-cars and arrogantly thinking that if it works for them, it should work for everyone.
I believe that the greatest opposition to SUVs should not come from environmentalists but rather lovers of 'free choice' and 'equality'. Under a distorted perspective on the freedom to choice, associations like SUVOA are fighting to completely eliminate freedom of choice.
but I do understand why some people want them. And I'm okay with it.
I also understand why some people want them. And I am perfectly okay with that too. What I am not ok with is these people wanting them and not willing to pay the price for the extra utility they gain. Other people have cars that have smaller engines and lower emission and less utility, consequently a cut in emissions will impact them less. If you have a larger engine with higher emissions and also more utility, expect the emissions cuts to impact you more and be ready to pay more.
And if we go by your logic, then consider this. The rise in gas prices is disproportionately affecting the SUV owners (because of relatively lower mileage). Consequently, "their vehicles are the ones that are ending up costing a lot more, not "all vehicles", like the PZEV Ford Focus" So we should actually have discounted gas prices for the SUV owners and higher ones for the economy car owners, right? After all, the SUV owners are being forced to pay a lot more than the economy car owners. Is that fair?
Well, we'll let Karl defend himself against our assertion that he was unfair to people who dislike SUVs. Our reasons for not liking them can totally be argued against, but that won't change the fact that we feel that way and that more importantly, our reasons go beyond what Karl said they did in that quote. (For most of us, environmentalism and jealousy aren't part of our reasons at all.)
I see the purpose of this thread to talk about Karl's opinions on stuff, not to talk about the stuff themselves. It's cool of him to do that.
Karl, when you get back, could you also tell us what was posery about the 2nd-gen Miata?
Yep, sad that Lexus promised so much and has apparently delivered so little. The VDIM and lack of a manual will kill the IS350 among enthusiasts. The lack of power in the IS250 will make it a tough sell in that crowded lower 30k portion of the market currently owned by the the TL (6-7k units a month) and G35 (3-4k units a month).
Won't even get into the 325i that can for once be had with more power than Lexus' equivalent car. Still shocked Lexus released the IS250 with so little power.
Sorry Bigdaddy. I sort of did leave. I went on vacation last week (though I was still trying to read and comment when possible) and I spent this week digging out of the inevitable backlog from being on vacation. Plus, I just finished attending the IS350 press event. We sent a freelancer to do a First Drive story on it (http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FirstDrives/articleId=106455), but I attended as well and got a drive-away. It's in my garage right now and I'll be doing a full test write-up on it in the coming week. FYI, it did a 6.1 zero-to-60 time and and 14.2 in the quarter. I'll leave more comments in a second.
I'm going through the posts that I missed right now. Very cool discusion about the "U.S. autobahn" idea. I'll leave comments where appropriate.
Expect some major 'teething' problems. Let us say you open a road with no speed limits over here. Given that people are not used to the thing and given the adverse selection you will have in the beginning, I expect some terrible crash statistics. Things will eventually smoothen out and I will stick my head out there and say it will actually be safer than the normal roads! However, the initial carnage may put the continuation of the road in jeopardy (backed by the powerful insurance lobby).
Yep, sad that Lexus promised so much and has apparently delivered so little.
Amzing that you have called this out without even attending the press trip...because you are RIGHT ON THE MONEY!!!
Since driving the IS350 for the first time at Willow Springs Raceway yesterday, and then driving it about 100 miles on public roads, I've had mixed feelings. After the track I honestly felt very disappointed. It's all the stuff noted in our First Drive, and the stuff you guys have called out. Too much electronic nannery. Too little power in the 250. No manual in the 350, etc. But after driving it on public roads I realized that, when you are using it like most people drive most of the time (this includes BMW 3 Series drivers), the car is amazingly well conceived. It's fast (in 350 form), super refined, super comfortable and offers very high-tech features and high-quality interior materials.
Sure, it wasn't very thrilling in turns 8 and 9 at Willow, but coming back down Angeles Crest Highway, where the last thing you want is a car that misbehaves while drifting through a curve that's 1,000 feet up the side of a mountain, the confidence of the IS350 (electronic nannies and all) was very much appreciated.
BUT, the one item that still annoys me was the presentation before we drove it at Willow and back down Angeles Crest Highway. In short, we were told that Lexus was finally getting serious about producing a class leader in this category, and they didn't say class leader in cabin noise or material quality. They very much eluded to a class leader in sportiness.
Well, it's not a class leader in sportiness. BMW's engineers can sleep easy (so can Audi's and Nissan's, for that matter...).
So we should actually have discounted gas prices for the SUV owners and higher ones for the economy car owners, right? After all, the SUV owners are being forced to pay a lot more than the economy car owners. Is that fair?
This comment pretty much negates the main point of your post, which seems to be that SUV buyers ought to pay "more" than economy car buyers for choosing an SUV. But as you noted in the comment above, they are already paying "more."
They paid more when they bought the car (big SUVs with V8 engines cost a lot more than economy cars). They paid more in sales tax, they pay more in insurance premiums and service costs. And, as you mentioned, they pay more in monthly gas bills.
Now I'm going to let everyone in on a little secret about Karl Brauer:
I feel that jealousy/envy is a major contributor to the majority of problems on this planet.
Ten years ago I moved from Colorado to Los Angeles to begin my career in automotive journalism as the editorial assistant of Hot Rod Magazine. I made a whopping $19,400 a year, and because I didn't want to deal with L.A. traffic I lived in an apartment just inside Beverly Hills because it was a 7-minute walk to the Petersen building on Wilshire Boulevard.
So, here I am, bringing home $1,500 a month after taxes and paying $785 a month in rent for my tiny one-bedroom apartment. I literally had to live on macaroni and cheese or Spaghetti O's for the first year, and I took up teaching motorcycle safety on the weekends because it paid $75 (for about 15 hours of work) and helped me afford work clothes. But I'm technically living in Beverly Hills, and whether I'm walking to work or going out for a $8 dinner at the Beverly Hills Cafe around the corner, I'm surrounded by the excesses of America. SUVs are everywhere, as are Ferraris, Rolls-Royces and, for the "poor" Beverly Hills residents, Mercedes and BMWs. Very often I'd recognize the people driving these vehicles (saw Jay Leno, Cindy Crawford, LL Cool J and others).
And the amazing thing was that while many of my co-workers at Petersen kept bitching about the rich stars, or the rich Petersen executives, or the rich Beverly Hills home owners, all I could think was, "what a great country that allows people to attain this level of success -- I'll have to make sure I work hard and try to become one of these people myself."
In the 10 years since moving here I've continued to hear people [non-permissible content removed] about the supposed "injustice" of some people having so much while others have so little. And just like back in my Petersen days, it's obvious that what these people are saying isn't really, "I feel bad for the disadvantaged people" as much as they are saying, "I feel anger and jealousy for the people who are doing so well."
If you're wondering how this pertains to SUVs, here you go. The basic argument I always hear about SUVs is, "most of the people don't really need them." Yeah? Well how many people need to go moutain biking? How many people need to create art? How many people need to play a musical instrument. How many people need to watch a sporting event? Do we really need the California Condor?
This country is made up of people doing a lot of stuff they don't need to do. And you know what? People go right on living here. Many of them even come here from other countries with the hope of one day doing things they don't need to do either.
If you want to say you're not a fan of SUVs, and you don't ever want to drive one yourself, go ahead. I'll gladly make the same statement right here: I'm not a fan of SUVs and I don't plan on ever owning/driving one (except for evaluation purposes). I also don't plan on smoking, moutain biking, joining an orchestra or watching any baseball games this season (or any other professional sports...).
And every time I hear someone yelling about the people who are doing those things I'll continue to wonder why that person wants to limit other people's freedom to live their life.
And don't start with the "Well, but SUVs waste a lot of resources." Uh-huh, but the time, money and energy spent on professional sports activities are purely the benefit of all Americans? How much does the average stadium cost to build? What does the average professional athlete make? How many "disadvanged" people would that money house, feed and cloth?
If you're going to argue that SUVs are both unnecessary and wasteful then it's time we outlawed every professional sport in this country. And don't get me started about the Hollywood Elite. You know, the ones who live in 12-bedroom houses, ride around in 6,000-pound limos, fly only first class and then head to an Earth Day rally and, once the cameras are rolling, say clearly into the microphone, "We need to do more to save our resources."
"So what are you saying Karl, that we should stop those people from living that wasteful lifestyle?"
No, as I said earlier, I don't have a problem with people enjoying the wealth that is possible as an American citizen. I just can't stand the hypocracy (for more on this, see this column I wrote a while back http://www.edmunds.com/news/column/carmudgeon/49763/article.html).
And what I really can't stand are the people who seem ready to attack others on the basis of their lifestyle. As a Southern California resident I can assure you that there are plenty of lifestyles I don't agree with in my immediate vicinity. But I don't attack them...unless I see them attacking my lifestyle, or even other people's lifestyles, first.
And I still think the primary driving force behind most of these attacks is jealousy/envy, not any altruistic desire to save the planet, help the poor or balance the scales of justice. Maybe I'm wrong, but between my personal interactions with those that are often doing the attacking, and the blatant hypocracy of the aforementioned Hollywood Elite, I have no reason to believe otherwise.
let me say that I have no problem with rich people. I absolutely disagree with the way Democrats want them to foot the bill for people who don't want to work. It also drives me nuts to see X amount of dollars of my paycheck going to taxes and then I overhear a conversation between a couple of single moms talking about the thousands upon thousands of dollars they are getting back when they only paid a fraction of that in. My issues with large SUV;s have nothing to do with jealousy or a sense of entitlement. If I wanted a gas-guzzling SUV I could easily afford one but I choose not to.
My problem with SUV's is that people use them as bulldozers and expect you will move out of their way because they are in a 4000 lb behemoth. My problem with SUV's is that they are considering lowering the speed limit to save fuel when my Accord gets twice the gas mileage cruising at 100 MPH than an Expedition gets cruising at 55 MPH. I realize there are certain situations that may warrant a large SUV with 4WD capability. But I think they are a tremendous waste and they are almost becoming the kid in school who ruins it for everybody. You know what I'm talking about, right? The one kid who keeps talking and talking and talking and ends up ruining the field trip. If your situation warrants a large SUV fine but please don't block the road with it, pull out in front of me, or [non-permissible content removed] about gas prices being high.
Bravo, Karl. I don't know if I agree with everything you said (I might have added a few of the six remaining seven deadly sins as the cause of most of our worldly problems), but I certainly appreciate your bluntness and candor.
My problem with SUV's is that people use them as bulldozers and expect you will move out of their way because they are in a 4000 lb behemoth.
It sounds like you have problem with SUV drivers, not SUVs. For me, I'm usually in a faster/better handling vehicle, which means they are in my way and I wish they'd move. Regardless, I won't dismiss a type of car based solely on the driver profile. That's like all these people who write off BMWs or Porsches simply because of the assumed characteristics of the drivers/owners. Most of these people have never driven a BMW or Porsche, so they don't realize that the two brands make some of the best cars on the planet. A real shame they're letting an assumption about these brands keep them from ever enjoying the cars personally...but I guess that keeps demand down and makes it more likely I can afford one in the used market when I'm ready to buy...
My problem with SUV's is that they are considering lowering the speed limit to save fuel when my Accord gets twice the gas mileage cruising at 100 MPH than an Expedition gets cruising at 55 MPH.
I've not heard about a specific consideration of lowering the speed limit, especially one based strictly on the fuel mileage of SUVs. I agree it would be a dumb move.
But I think they are a tremendous waste and they are almost becoming the kid in school who ruins it for everybody. You know what I'm talking about, right? The one kid who keeps talking and talking and talking and ends up ruining the field trip.
The only way SUVs could ruin it for everyone is if enough people assume SUVs, alone, are the cause of all of America's energy problems, and subsequently support legislation based on that simple-minded philosophy. Obviously I won't be supportive of this move. Hope everyone else out there is smart enough to avoid this fallacy as well.
If your situation warrants a large SUV fine but please don't block the road with it, pull out in front of me, or [non-permissible content removed] about gas prices being high.
One-hundred percent agree. Though I am confused. Are SUV drivers trying to get you out of the way, as stated above, or are they getting in your way? Maybe it's both. I haven't seen a consistent enough driving behavior by SUV drivers to draw any sweeping conclusions, but they might be different in your area.
"I also don't plan on smoking, moutain biking, joining an orchestra or watching any baseball games this season (or any other professional sports...). "
06 Saab 9-3 Aero and full test of SportCombi (stupid name)
Mazda5 - think it is a small niche vehicle or start to a new segment for the U.S.?
HHR - yeah, I know, but I still want to read it
Soltice - Karl when do you guys get to drive this??? There are quite a few GM exec. cars around town. Somehow I have a feeling that the MX-5 is going to be rated better.
Charger SRT-8 - saw a black one last night, sweet!
Ok, here is possibility for a Toll Autobahn to help avoid carnage (this is not in-depth researched, but gleaned from various road concepts I've seen here and in Australia):
1. Drivers would be _required_ to equip their vehicles with a transponder telling the enforcers that this car "can go fast" as well as automatically keep track of distance driven (and automatically billing toll charges). To GET transponder, the driver will need to attend a special driving program and be certified for driving at high speeds, and get his/her thumb print identified for the transponder. If you don't have the transponder, you don't get to drive on the road, period.
2. This transponder will be connected to the vehicle's ignition system and rev limiter. Before the vehicle is allowed on the Toll way, a series of fast checks are done to verify the transponder/controller is working properly.
3. Before getting on tollroad, the driver needs to let the transponder know it is a certified driver for that vehicle on that tollroad. A thumb sensor is used by the driver at the toll plaza which gives vehicle transponder necessary information.
4. If driver follows the rules taught during certification (race style driving), they enjoy high speed bliss.
5. If a driver "drives like a fool", tollway/state authorities will limit that vehicle's engine revs so vehicle slows to a crawl, escorted off the tollway and driver punished (fine, loss of all driving rights on tollroad, suspension of license). If the transponder / engine connections are found altered to deactivate monitoring (or the vehicle has __no__ transponder), driver gets nailed with everything and possibly has vehicle impounded for a "cooling off" period.
A more general question: Should driving on a Toll Autobahn road be __strictly__ regulated, and not a "free for all" ?
I've just never been a huge motorsports fan. The short explanation is that I'm a better participant than onlooker. Once upon a time, when stock cars were really based on cars I could buy, or Trans Am cars were based on real pony cars, the idea of watching them race was exciting because at some level I could go out and drive the same vehicle(s).
Today there are almost no racing leagues that represent the real world, and thus it's just a bunch of guys in a bunch of one-off machines trying to go fast. Plus the idea of "leveling the field" to improve competition means that the actual engineering talent of any given automaker doesn't really play a role in how well they perform in professional racing. I still like the concept of racing competition, and I don't begrude people who watch it, but for me I can't get into something so removed from reality.
I'm surrounded by the excesses of America. SUVs are everywhere, as are Ferraris, Rolls-Royces and, for the "poor" Beverly Hills residents, Mercedes and BMWs. Very often I'd recognize the people driving these vehicles (saw Jay Leno, Cindy Crawford, LL Cool J and others).
I am a long-time resident of your old neighborhood (Only because I bought property when it was somewhat affordable here. I couldn’t afford to buy property in the neighborhood now), I know what you mean by “excesses of America”.
What amazes me are the many very young people I see driving new Porches, Ferraris, Bentley Continentals, etc. People tell me that except for the ones who have rich parents, that most of these young exotic car drivers have made it big in some phase of the entertainment business at an early age.
About a year ago, when I was coming out of one of the department stores on Wilshire Blvd. a teenage boy and girl drove up in a Bentley convertible with the top down. They got out, left the engine running and started to go into the store. The door attendant asked them to drive to the valet area to have their car parked, but they said, “We won’t be long” and walked in.
The door attendant just stood there not knowing what to do. Leaving your late model Bentley convertible outside of a store with the engine running while you shop is genuine American Excess!
Leaving your late model Bentley convertible outside of a store with the engine running while you shop is genuine American Excess!
More like genuine idiots! Who leaves a Bentley outside with the engine running? You might as well hold up a neon sign saying "expensive car here, please steal it!"
Editor Karl, how exactly did you snag a 2006 model way back last year?
This was a few months after there was a First Drive event in England, where all the major buff books were invited to drive early Solstice test mules alongside some classic British roadsters. It was well before Inside Line was launched, but I was unhappy about being left out of the trip and made some calls to GM. We subsequently got a freelancer into a car in the Detroit area, which resulted in that Solstice First Drive for Edmunds. It actually worked out OK, because the cars on the England trip were truly early mules without interior components or even exterior paint. The car our freelancer drove in that test had a complete interior and finished exterior panels. However, there will be a final production version of the Solstice at a press event in a few weeks, and we'll do a First Drive story on that car, too, since it will be the version actually sold in showrooms this fall.
Editor Karl, when will you do a Full Test on the Lexus GS300/430 and Infiniti M35/45? How about First Drives for the DTS, Impala, and Zephyr?
We just finished a five-car shootout of $40,000 (give-or-take) all-wheel drive sedans, including a 5 Series, A6, M35, GS300 and STS. That story will be live in a few weeks. Quick preview: the BMW did NOT win, or even take second.
I know we just drove the "new" DTS at a local event, but the car is really just a re-fresh and I'm not sure how much coverage it will get, or when it will appear on the site. I'll have to check on the Impala and Zephyr, but I think they are coming shortly.
No the point is, you steal a cat that sticks out, people will notice. A bentley rolls by and even the cops take a gander at it. Steal a 3 series in so cal and you're one of 2 gazillion on the freeway with the same car.
Besides, if you can afford a bentley, then cash is not a worry. Someone steals it ya shrug and go drive the Cayenne or the Gallardo.
Have there been any road tests of the Saturn Sky, and if so, how do you feel it compares to the Solstice?
The Sky is approxiamtely eight months behind the Solstice in terms of product release. It's a 2007 model (versus the 2006 classification of the Solstice) and I'd expect the first press events to happen next Spring.
But I'm technically living in Beverly Hills, and whether I'm walking to work or going out for a $8 dinner at the Beverly Hills Cafe around the corner, I'm surrounded by the excesses of America. SUVs are everywhere, as are Ferraris, Rolls-Royces and, for the "poor" Beverly Hills residents, Mercedes and BMWs. Very often I'd recognize the people driving these vehicles (saw Jay Leno, Cindy Crawford, LL Cool J and others).
LOL So you base your opinion on your experience living in Beverly Hills?
YIKES!! The land of plastic surgery is hardly representative of the other 99% of the country.
OK gang, my latest (and probably last, for awhile) vehicle purchase is drawing near. Like with the Triumph Hurricane, I'm going to let people ask me yes/no questions to try and figure out what it is, if they want to.
I know some of you out there already know what it is, so I'd ask you not to play, or to give it away. But since I can't actually stop you I'll be depending on the honor system here.
Here is your one hint: It's a CAR (not a motorcycle) built after 1999.
Sorry there's no prize, other than proving your powers of deductive reasoning.
I'll try one more, then give others a chance. Since you already said you wouldn't buy an SUV, and I doubt you would drive a minivan, and you live in/near Beverly Hills:
Here's a series of yes/no questions - don't answer if you feel it will be a giveaway.
Domestic or foreign manufacturer? Horsepower? 150-199, 200-299, 300-399? Is the vehicle still in production? Is it more performance or luxury? RWD or FWD? Is it above $50,000?
For the record, I do not own an SUV or ever plan to, but I do understand why some people want them. And I'm okay with it.
I had a friend visit from Lousiana this weekend. He's a large fellow. So he requested a large rental car. Ended up with an 05 Tahoe. I have never ridden in a Tahoe, so I was curious. To be honest, I liked it. The 5.3L ran smooth with great pull all the way to the shift point and it had a lot of features, though it didn't seem loaded up (cloth, for example). The driver information display even logged engine hours! It reported about 16.5mpg average, and I'm sure that could have been brought up had my friend not been "mashing" on it as much. The smaller V6 utes can do maybe 2mpg better than this (average, under these conditions). Sure, the handling was awful, as the tires squealed around even moderate corners, but I can see why someone would choose that vehicle. I wouldn't. But I'm certainly not going to act like there is no reason to buy one.
Here's a series of yes/no questions - don't answer if you feel it will be a giveaway.
Domestic or foreign manufacturer? Horsepower? 150-199, 200-299, 300-399? Is the vehicle still in production? Is it more performance or luxury? RWD or FWD? Is it above $50,000?
I'm going to impose a "one question per post" limit, so I'll take the first "yes/no" format question from this list:
Comments
It's too bad sports car drivers don't have more clout though. Soon they'll have been legislated out of existence.
Basically, SUV owners feel, rightly, that they are being singled out because their vehicles are the ones that will end up costing a lot more, not "all vehicles".
We all would like to have a massive beach house in Florida, a condo on a rooftop somewhere in Manhattan and a farmhouse somewhere upstate. As we would also like to have zero deductible on all our insurance and a billion dollars of coverage for everything. Mind you, all of us can have either of these. They are not stuff that you will need to use at most points of time but its nice to know that you have more. But the reason why a majority of people dont have either is because the 'state' of having more than required comes at a cost.
Most SUVs I see (maybe I live in the wrong place) have one, at the most 2 people at a time on perfectly paved level urban roads. I do not deny that they have off-road capability which is not available in other vehicles. Neither do I deny that they have tons of space not available anywhere else (a favourite of the SUV lovers, a Suburban can seat 9 and a good amount of luggage). They also have awesome towing capacity. But in the end these features, at least visibly are seldom utilized. An average American family I think has 2.2 kids
However, you are buying 'more' just so that you are assured that when you need it, you will have it. This 'extra' should come at a price, and that is fair! I am all for freedom of choice and a free market, as long as the freedom is absolute and not skewed towards one group!
A PZEV Ford Focus guy has given up the 'ability' to haul a yatch if he needs to (He will probably rent out an SUV when he needs to). He has also given up a lot more 'power'. So when it comes to emissions, it is but natural that given that he 'gave up' the choices, his cost at maintaining his car would be lower.
An SUV owner went for the big 4.5L engine. He will not use it 90% of the times (once again, MOST, will not use it 90% of the time. I have mentioned earlier that I have friends who are into mountain biking and other outdoors stuff and own SUVs to go to places where no other vehicles will go). Take one honest look around and assess for yourself how much of the 'utility' is actually utilized! I agree that they will be utilized 'sometime' but if you are going for an overkill, you made a conscous choice. And if you did, you will obviously be required to pay more for your choice. Thats what a free market is all about. Seeking exception for a certain class is distortion of the 'free-ness'. The emissions norms are uniform for all. If someone believes that he requires 'more', let him pay for it! Why should he not?
Once again, I never said that people do not need SUVs. Neither did I say 'ban SUVs'. All I said was, if you need the 'extra' stuff, pay for it! Why make associations and try to muscle your way into getting an exception in the name of freedom of choice? If you are letting someone have 'more' and also making his costs artificially low, and making the costs same for the guy who is has 'less', you are automatically tilting all choice in one direction. How is that freedom of choice?
Personally, I think there are a lot of self-righteous environmentalist out there with few or no kids driving around in mini-cars and arrogantly thinking that if it works for them, it should work for everyone.
I believe that the greatest opposition to SUVs should not come from environmentalists but rather lovers of 'free choice' and 'equality'. Under a distorted perspective on the freedom to choice, associations like SUVOA are fighting to completely eliminate freedom of choice.
but I do understand why some people want them. And I'm okay with it.
I also understand why some people want them. And I am perfectly okay with that too. What I am not ok with is these people wanting them and not willing to pay the price for the extra utility they gain. Other people have cars that have smaller engines and lower emission and less utility, consequently a cut in emissions will impact them less. If you have a larger engine with higher emissions and also more utility, expect the emissions cuts to impact you more and be ready to pay more.
And if we go by your logic, then consider this. The rise in gas prices is disproportionately affecting the SUV owners (because of relatively lower mileage). Consequently, "their vehicles are the ones that are ending up costing a lot more, not "all vehicles", like the PZEV Ford Focus" So we should actually have discounted gas prices for the SUV owners and higher ones for the economy car owners, right? After all, the SUV owners are being forced to pay a lot more than the economy car owners. Is that fair?
I see the purpose of this thread to talk about Karl's opinions on stuff, not to talk about the stuff themselves. It's cool of him to do that.
Karl, when you get back, could you also tell us what was posery about the 2nd-gen Miata?
Won't even get into the 325i that can for once be had with more power than Lexus' equivalent car. Still shocked Lexus released the IS250 with so little power.
Sorry Bigdaddy. I sort of did leave. I went on vacation last week (though I was still trying to read and comment when possible) and I spent this week digging out of the inevitable backlog from being on vacation. Plus, I just finished attending the IS350 press event. We sent a freelancer to do a First Drive story on it (http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FirstDrives/articleId=106455), but I attended as well and got a drive-away. It's in my garage right now and I'll be doing a full test write-up on it in the coming week. FYI, it did a 6.1 zero-to-60 time and and 14.2 in the quarter. I'll leave more comments in a second.
I'm going through the posts that I missed right now. Very cool discusion about the "U.S. autobahn" idea. I'll leave comments where appropriate.
Thanks for keeping things lively here guys.
Amzing that you have called this out without even attending the press trip...because you are RIGHT ON THE MONEY!!!
Since driving the IS350 for the first time at Willow Springs Raceway yesterday, and then driving it about 100 miles on public roads, I've had mixed feelings. After the track I honestly felt very disappointed. It's all the stuff noted in our First Drive, and the stuff you guys have called out. Too much electronic nannery. Too little power in the 250. No manual in the 350, etc. But after driving it on public roads I realized that, when you are using it like most people drive most of the time (this includes BMW 3 Series drivers), the car is amazingly well conceived. It's fast (in 350 form), super refined, super comfortable and offers very high-tech features and high-quality interior materials.
Sure, it wasn't very thrilling in turns 8 and 9 at Willow, but coming back down Angeles Crest Highway, where the last thing you want is a car that misbehaves while drifting through a curve that's 1,000 feet up the side of a mountain, the confidence of the IS350 (electronic nannies and all) was very much appreciated.
BUT, the one item that still annoys me was the presentation before we drove it at Willow and back down Angeles Crest Highway. In short, we were told that Lexus was finally getting serious about producing a class leader in this category, and they didn't say class leader in cabin noise or material quality. They very much eluded to a class leader in sportiness.
Well, it's not a class leader in sportiness. BMW's engineers can sleep easy (so can Audi's and Nissan's, for that matter...).
This comment pretty much negates the main point of your post, which seems to be that SUV buyers ought to pay "more" than economy car buyers for choosing an SUV. But as you noted in the comment above, they are already paying "more."
They paid more when they bought the car (big SUVs with V8 engines cost a lot more than economy cars). They paid more in sales tax, they pay more in insurance premiums and service costs. And, as you mentioned, they pay more in monthly gas bills.
Now I'm going to let everyone in on a little secret about Karl Brauer:
I feel that jealousy/envy is a major contributor to the majority of problems on this planet.
Ten years ago I moved from Colorado to Los Angeles to begin my career in automotive journalism as the editorial assistant of Hot Rod Magazine. I made a whopping $19,400 a year, and because I didn't want to deal with L.A. traffic I lived in an apartment just inside Beverly Hills because it was a 7-minute walk to the Petersen building on Wilshire Boulevard.
So, here I am, bringing home $1,500 a month after taxes and paying $785 a month in rent for my tiny one-bedroom apartment. I literally had to live on macaroni and cheese or Spaghetti O's for the first year, and I took up teaching motorcycle safety on the weekends because it paid $75 (for about 15 hours of work) and helped me afford work clothes. But I'm technically living in Beverly Hills, and whether I'm walking to work or going out for a $8 dinner at the Beverly Hills Cafe around the corner, I'm surrounded by the excesses of America. SUVs are everywhere, as are Ferraris, Rolls-Royces and, for the "poor" Beverly Hills residents, Mercedes and BMWs. Very often I'd recognize the people driving these vehicles (saw Jay Leno, Cindy Crawford, LL Cool J and others).
And the amazing thing was that while many of my co-workers at Petersen kept bitching about the rich stars, or the rich Petersen executives, or the rich Beverly Hills home owners, all I could think was, "what a great country that allows people to attain this level of success -- I'll have to make sure I work hard and try to become one of these people myself."
In the 10 years since moving here I've continued to hear people [non-permissible content removed] about the supposed "injustice" of some people having so much while others have so little. And just like back in my Petersen days, it's obvious that what these people are saying isn't really, "I feel bad for the disadvantaged people" as much as they are saying, "I feel anger and jealousy for the people who are doing so well."
If you're wondering how this pertains to SUVs, here you go. The basic argument I always hear about SUVs is, "most of the people don't really need them." Yeah? Well how many people need to go moutain biking? How many people need to create art? How many people need to play a musical instrument. How many people need to watch a sporting event? Do we really need the California Condor?
This country is made up of people doing a lot of stuff they don't need to do. And you know what? People go right on living here. Many of them even come here from other countries with the hope of one day doing things they don't need to do either.
If you want to say you're not a fan of SUVs, and you don't ever want to drive one yourself, go ahead. I'll gladly make the same statement right here: I'm not a fan of SUVs and I don't plan on ever owning/driving one (except for evaluation purposes). I also don't plan on smoking, moutain biking, joining an orchestra or watching any baseball games this season (or any other professional sports...).
And every time I hear someone yelling about the people who are doing those things I'll continue to wonder why that person wants to limit other people's freedom to live their life.
And don't start with the "Well, but SUVs waste a lot of resources." Uh-huh, but the time, money and energy spent on professional sports activities are purely the benefit of all Americans? How much does the average stadium cost to build? What does the average professional athlete make? How many "disadvanged" people would that money house, feed and cloth?
If you're going to argue that SUVs are both unnecessary and wasteful then it's time we outlawed every professional sport in this country. And don't get me started about the Hollywood Elite. You know, the ones who live in 12-bedroom houses, ride around in 6,000-pound limos, fly only first class and then head to an Earth Day rally and, once the cameras are rolling, say clearly into the microphone, "We need to do more to save our resources."
"So what are you saying Karl, that we should stop those people from living that wasteful lifestyle?"
No, as I said earlier, I don't have a problem with people enjoying the wealth that is possible as an American citizen. I just can't stand the hypocracy (for more on this, see this column I wrote a while back http://www.edmunds.com/news/column/carmudgeon/49763/article.html).
And what I really can't stand are the people who seem ready to attack others on the basis of their lifestyle. As a Southern California resident I can assure you that there are plenty of lifestyles I don't agree with in my immediate vicinity. But I don't attack them...unless I see them attacking my lifestyle, or even other people's lifestyles, first.
And I still think the primary driving force behind most of these attacks is jealousy/envy, not any altruistic desire to save the planet, help the poor or balance the scales of justice. Maybe I'm wrong, but between my personal interactions with those that are often doing the attacking, and the blatant hypocracy of the aforementioned Hollywood Elite, I have no reason to believe otherwise.
BTW, if you're looking for more articles on how lifestyle freedom, government regulation and logic are in conflict, try these out:
http://www.edmunds.com/news/column/carmudgeon/94938/article.html
http://www.edmunds.com/news/column/carmudgeon/81532/article.html
http://www.edmunds.com/news/column/carmudgeon/69394/article.html
My problem with SUV's is that people use them as bulldozers and expect you will move out of their way because they are in a 4000 lb behemoth. My problem with SUV's is that they are considering lowering the speed limit to save fuel when my Accord gets twice the gas mileage cruising at 100 MPH than an Expedition gets cruising at 55 MPH. I realize there are certain situations that may warrant a large SUV with 4WD capability. But I think they are a tremendous waste and they are almost becoming the kid in school who ruins it for everybody. You know what I'm talking about, right? The one kid who keeps talking and talking and talking and ends up ruining the field trip. If your situation warrants a large SUV fine but please don't block the road with it, pull out in front of me, or [non-permissible content removed] about gas prices being high.
It sounds like you have problem with SUV drivers, not SUVs. For me, I'm usually in a faster/better handling vehicle, which means they are in my way and I wish they'd move. Regardless, I won't dismiss a type of car based solely on the driver profile. That's like all these people who write off BMWs or Porsches simply because of the assumed characteristics of the drivers/owners. Most of these people have never driven a BMW or Porsche, so they don't realize that the two brands make some of the best cars on the planet. A real shame they're letting an assumption about these brands keep them from ever enjoying the cars personally...but I guess that keeps demand down and makes it more likely I can afford one in the used market when I'm ready to buy...
My problem with SUV's is that they are considering lowering the speed limit to save fuel when my Accord gets twice the gas mileage cruising at 100 MPH than an Expedition gets cruising at 55 MPH.
I've not heard about a specific consideration of lowering the speed limit, especially one based strictly on the fuel mileage of SUVs. I agree it would be a dumb move.
But I think they are a tremendous waste and they are almost becoming the kid in school who ruins it for everybody. You know what I'm talking about, right? The one kid who keeps talking and talking and talking and ends up ruining the field trip.
The only way SUVs could ruin it for everyone is if enough people assume SUVs, alone, are the cause of all of America's energy problems, and subsequently support legislation based on that simple-minded philosophy. Obviously I won't be supportive of this move. Hope everyone else out there is smart enough to avoid this fallacy as well.
If your situation warrants a large SUV fine but please don't block the road with it, pull out in front of me, or [non-permissible content removed] about gas prices being high.
One-hundred percent agree. Though I am confused. Are SUV drivers trying to get you out of the way, as stated above, or are they getting in your way? Maybe it's both. I haven't seen a consistent enough driving behavior by SUV drivers to draw any sweeping conclusions, but they might be different in your area.
Not even any racing of some form????
06 Saab 9-3 Aero and full test of SportCombi (stupid name)
Mazda5 - think it is a small niche vehicle or start to a new segment for the U.S.?
HHR - yeah, I know, but I still want to read it
Soltice - Karl when do you guys get to drive this??? There are quite a few GM exec. cars around town. Somehow I have a feeling that the MX-5 is going to be rated better.
Charger SRT-8 - saw a black one last night, sweet!
Small sedan comparo
All for now.
Terry
1. Drivers would be _required_ to equip their vehicles with a transponder telling the enforcers that this car "can go fast" as well as automatically keep track of distance driven (and automatically billing toll charges). To GET transponder, the driver will need to attend a special driving program and be certified for driving at high speeds, and get his/her thumb print identified for the transponder. If you don't have the transponder, you don't get to drive on the road, period.
2. This transponder will be connected to the vehicle's ignition system and rev limiter. Before the vehicle is allowed on the Toll way, a series of fast checks are done to verify the transponder/controller is working properly.
3. Before getting on tollroad, the driver needs to let the transponder know it is a certified driver for that vehicle on that tollroad. A thumb sensor is used by the driver at the toll plaza which gives vehicle transponder necessary information.
4. If driver follows the rules taught during certification (race style driving), they enjoy high speed bliss.
5. If a driver "drives like a fool", tollway/state authorities will limit that vehicle's engine revs so vehicle slows to a crawl, escorted off the tollway and driver punished (fine, loss of all driving rights on tollroad, suspension of license). If the transponder / engine connections are found altered to deactivate monitoring (or the vehicle has __no__ transponder), driver gets nailed with everything and possibly has vehicle impounded for a "cooling off" period.
A more general question:
Should driving on a Toll Autobahn road be __strictly__ regulated, and not a "free for all" ?
I've just never been a huge motorsports fan. The short explanation is that I'm a better participant than onlooker. Once upon a time, when stock cars were really based on cars I could buy, or Trans Am cars were based on real pony cars, the idea of watching them race was exciting because at some level I could go out and drive the same vehicle(s).
Today there are almost no racing leagues that represent the real world, and thus it's just a bunch of guys in a bunch of one-off machines trying to go fast. Plus the idea of "leveling the field" to improve competition means that the actual engineering talent of any given automaker doesn't really play a role in how well they perform in professional racing. I still like the concept of racing competition, and I don't begrude people who watch it, but for me I can't get into something so removed from reality.
I wrote a column about this topic awhile back, entitled "Not a Motorsports Guy." Here's the link:
http://www.edmunds.com/news/column/carmudgeon/66139/article.html
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FirstDrives/articleId=102385
Editor Karl, how exactly did you snag a 2006 model way back last year?
There's a small sport sedan comparison in the July edition of Motor Trend featuring the Focus, Spectra, Mazda3, Corolla and Cobalt.
There's also First Drives of the SportCombi and 9-3 Aero done recently.
Editor Karl, when will you do a Full Test on the Lexus GS300/430 and Infiniti M35/45? How about First Drives for the DTS, Impala, and Zephyr?
I am a long-time resident of your old neighborhood (Only because I bought property when it was somewhat affordable here. I couldn’t afford to buy property in the neighborhood now), I know what you mean by “excesses of America”.
What amazes me are the many very young people I see driving new Porches, Ferraris, Bentley Continentals, etc. People tell me that except for the ones who have rich parents, that most of these young exotic car drivers have made it big in some phase of the entertainment business at an early age.
About a year ago, when I was coming out of one of the department stores on Wilshire Blvd. a teenage boy and girl drove up in a Bentley convertible with the top down. They got out, left the engine running and started to go into the store. The door attendant asked them to drive to the valet area to have their car parked, but they said, “We won’t be long” and walked in.
The door attendant just stood there not knowing what to do. Leaving your late model Bentley convertible outside of a store with the engine running while you shop is genuine American Excess!
More like genuine idiots! Who leaves a Bentley outside with the engine running? You might as well hold up a neon sign saying "expensive car here, please steal it!"
Like I said genuine idiots
This was a few months after there was a First Drive event in England, where all the major buff books were invited to drive early Solstice test mules alongside some classic British roadsters. It was well before Inside Line was launched, but I was unhappy about being left out of the trip and made some calls to GM. We subsequently got a freelancer into a car in the Detroit area, which resulted in that Solstice First Drive for Edmunds. It actually worked out OK, because the cars on the England trip were truly early mules without interior components or even exterior paint. The car our freelancer drove in that test had a complete interior and finished exterior panels. However, there will be a final production version of the Solstice at a press event in a few weeks, and we'll do a First Drive story on that car, too, since it will be the version actually sold in showrooms this fall.
Editor Karl, when will you do a Full Test on the Lexus GS300/430 and Infiniti M35/45? How about First Drives for the DTS, Impala, and Zephyr?
We drove the GS430 and M45 in a comparison test a few months ago: http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=104808
We just finished a five-car shootout of $40,000 (give-or-take) all-wheel drive sedans, including a 5 Series, A6, M35, GS300 and STS. That story will be live in a few weeks. Quick preview: the BMW did NOT win, or even take second.
I know we just drove the "new" DTS at a local event, but the car is really just a re-fresh and I'm not sure how much coverage it will get, or when it will appear on the site. I'll have to check on the Impala and Zephyr, but I think they are coming shortly.
Looking for full test of 9-3 models.
Yes, I read the MT article - still would like to read one here. I have a feeling the 3 will win.
M35
A6
5-series
GS300
STS
The DTS is just a re-fresh, but a pretty extensive one is it not??
Umm.....last time I checked stealing any car seems like a pretty quick way to go to jail.
Any do the feds really track down cars? Isn't that the local police departments job?
Besides, if you can afford a bentley, then cash is not a worry. Someone steals it ya shrug and go drive the Cayenne or the Gallardo.
Steal a CAR. Oops.
The Sky is approxiamtely eight months behind the Solstice in terms of product release. It's a 2007 model (versus the 2006 classification of the Solstice) and I'd expect the first press events to happen next Spring.
LOL
So you base your opinion on your experience living in Beverly Hills?
YIKES!!
The land of plastic surgery is hardly representative of the other 99% of the country.
The land of plastic surgery is hardly representative of the other 99% of the country.
I never claimed that Beverly Hills was representative of the rest of the country, only that people's reaction to Beverly Hills, and its residents, is.
Your comment would support my theory...
I know some of you out there already know what it is, so I'd ask you not to play, or to give it away. But since I can't actually stop you I'll be depending on the honor system here.
Here is your one hint: It's a CAR (not a motorcycle) built after 1999.
Sorry there's no prize, other than proving your powers of deductive reasoning.
The answer is "no" (meaning "no, it isn't a sedan").
Great opener. Keep 'em coming.
Is it a convertible?
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=106434/pageId=64751
You swapped the sonata and accord performance numbers. not a big deal and an easy fix...
Roadster?
- Ray
Not really very good at 20 questions . .
Domestic or foreign manufacturer?
Horsepower? 150-199, 200-299, 300-399?
Is the vehicle still in production?
Is it more performance or luxury?
RWD or FWD?
Is it above $50,000?
I had a friend visit from Lousiana this weekend. He's a large fellow. So he requested a large rental car. Ended up with an 05 Tahoe. I have never ridden in a Tahoe, so I was curious. To be honest, I liked it. The 5.3L ran smooth with great pull all the way to the shift point and it had a lot of features, though it didn't seem loaded up (cloth, for example). The driver information display even logged engine hours! It reported about 16.5mpg average, and I'm sure that could have been brought up had my friend not been "mashing" on it as much. The smaller V6 utes can do maybe 2mpg better than this (average, under these conditions).
Sure, the handling was awful, as the tires squealed around even moderate corners, but I can see why someone would choose that vehicle. I wouldn't. But I'm certainly not going to act like there is no reason to buy one.
IMO, this is the bottom line that can generically be applied to all aspects of middle-upper class living.
No
That's kind of a judgement call, but I'll say "Yes" it is a toy. I'm pretty sure you'll all agree when you find out.
No
Domestic or foreign manufacturer?
Horsepower? 150-199, 200-299, 300-399?
Is the vehicle still in production?
Is it more performance or luxury?
RWD or FWD?
Is it above $50,000?
I'm going to impose a "one question per post" limit, so I'll take the first "yes/no" format question from this list:
Is the vehicle still in production?
Yes