Financial ignorance and/or irresponsibility are certainly factors, but these gaps are also growing outside of the US. There's more to it than impulse spending. I wonder what amount of this devolution is due to medical debt.
I thought big useless SUVs and oversized shoddy houses were the "American dream".
And THERE you have found the problem...it isn't that people don't make enough money
Unfortunately, many don't make enough. But I too see many people who make solid wages $30+/hr that don't save any money. But don't hesitate to buy a 3/4 ton diesel truck and a 35' fifth wheel trailer. Something goes wrong and they're complaining they don't have any money. Go figure.
My wife had an employee that just went through personal bankruptcy. She makes over $130k/yr. I guess she needs a raise.
There's more to it than impulse spending. I wonder what amount of this devolution is due to medical debt.
I'd say that is one of many factors.
I thought big useless SUVs and oversized shoddy houses were the "American dream".
I know everyone likes to beat up on SUVs, but a few of us actually use them for something other than going to the store or intimidating Prius drivers;) Okay, the latter can be fun too:)
And THERE you have found the problem...it isn't that people don't make enough money, it's that they have to buy every new toy for each kid at Xmas, $600 iPhones for each family member, house they cannot afford, car payments to keep up with the neighbors, putting Grandma's trip to Europe on their credit card, yada, yada, yada...
But, it's those bad habits of conspicuous consumption and living beyond your means that also helps to make people rich. While the masses are flocking to the stores to get their Iphones, Ipad Maxis, or whatever, it's sending the share price of Apple through the roof, which benefits the investors. And all those credit card interest fees and late charges, etc, are running up the share price of Visa, Mastercard, etc. Buying too much house and then struggling to make the payments benefits the big banks as well...until the market implodes, at least. And then, it's that volatility that helps you make good money in REIT's, if you time it right. And then the paranoia of global economic collapse drives the price of gold up. And with the now-deflated real estate prices, I could actually afford to go buy one of the once-overpriced McMansions up the street, and ride that golden pony all the way into the market's recovery...if and when that finally happens.
If everybody suddenly started living beneath their means, I'm sure it would have a profound effect on the economy. A lot of lower and middle-class people would be in a much better position, but a lot of the wealthy wouldn't be as well-off either, since their stocks and other investments didn't shoot up as much, as a result of all that consumption.
$130K and went through bankruptcy? Absolutely nuts.
Maybe we ought to be putting more limits on declaring bankruptcy. With that income, unless it is a major medical issue, let her work her way out of it! It's one thing to go broke because of an emergency situation. Quite another if the emergency is that you are broke.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
I know everyone likes to beat up on SUVs, but a few of us actually use them for something other than going to the store or intimidating Prius drivers;) Okay, the latter can be fun too:)
My stepdad just bought a Prius, the nerd! Wanna go bully him around some for me? :P
But, it's those bad habits of conspicuous consumption and living beyond your means that also helps to make people rich.
Absolutely.
Take the wealth away from the top 20% and give it to the other 80% and I'd bet at some point in the future, many of the original top 20% will be back on top again.
The track record of lottery winners certainly gives some credence.
It is a many factored mess, but one thing remains - it will not make a brighter future.
30 or 40 years ago people used SUVs for their intended purpose too...in fact, almost all who drove them did. That vehicle somehow becoming a commuter rig is closely linked to personal financial idiocy, however.
Good point....the entire economy, especially that of the previous 15 year false boom, was based on people living above their means. Without overspending, everything would be different to begin with.
It's also those who profit from it who drive conspicuous consumption via media manipulation. It's a pretty transparent game, brainwashing people into feeling worthless unless they have the latest "designed in California" gadget or most pointless American made SUV.
This way way back in 2005, and he was making $103K per year with overtime. When that OT got cut, and he was reduced to $87K, he had to declare bankruptcy! He managed to amass $469K worth of debt by that time, as well.
That's a sad state of affairs when someone lives so close to the edge like that, that a 15-16% cut in salary could send him into bankruptcy. And I'm sure that he's not the exception to the rule.
That's a sad state of affairs when someone lives so close to the edge like that, that a 15-16% cut in salary could send him into bankruptcy. And I'm sure that he's not the exception to the rule.
No it's not. My FIL had several mill buddies that were pretty much in the same situation (well maybe not that extreme). When things slowed down in the late '99 and into '00, o/t was cut first. His working buddies were pretty much screwed then as many of them relied on o/t. Then when LTV finally declared BK and laid everyone off, they were in real trouble. How you can work someplace making 70-100k/yr in the 90's and not save a penny is inexcusable.
This of course will bring us around to the idea that the trouble is we stopped paying all those guys six figures with OT to sweep floors, throw a tire in the trunk (not the same guy - there are rules!), etc....
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
It's getting easier to uncover the true cost of a failed business plan and accompanying Union system.
In a strange case that rallied pro- and anti-union advocates equally, the Chrysler Group LLC announced that it has fired 13 assembly-line employees and suspended two others after the United Auto Workers union workers were videotaped by Fox2 Detroit drinking and using marijuana during a lunch break at the Jefferson North assembly plant in Detroit that builds the Jeep Grand Cherokee.
Chrysler worker drinks in car.jpgMany saw the incident as yet another black eye for unionized workers in general and the American auto industry in particular, one that reinforces long-held perceptions that worker skill and discipline and overall product quality at domestic auto plants is inferior. Others saw it as representing a standard that does not apply to most of the white-collar workforce.
If they had been white collar they still would have been canned given the situation and sensitivity. The UAW also conveniently forgets that white collar were hosed way worse than their workers during all of this downturn.
diesel: "But I too see many people who make solid wages $30+/hr that don't save any money. But don't hesitate to buy a 3/4 ton diesel truck and a 35' fifth wheel trailer"
Often people can buy what they WANT to buy...if they WANTED to save they could...
fezo: "If everybody suddenly started living beneath their means, I'm sure it would have a profound effect on the economy."...yes, but it would be a very good effect...no one has ever proven to me why our economy must grow at 3-4% to be "healthy" instead of a steady 1-2%...so fewer homes are built (so we really don't need as many building contractors), fewer iPhones are bought (so Apple stock doesn't skyrocket, big deal), fewer $40K pickup trucks are sold (so the auto industry would have had a smaller work force and those "unneeded" workers would have worked elsewhere and never seen the floor of a GM factory)...
All that would happen if folks lived within their means is that the economy would probably avoid those "superboom" years that are always followed by "superbust" years when everyone thinks the world is falling apart...and the economy would not make the headlines like it does, both boom and bust because the up and down extremes would be smaller, like small waves on the ocean rather than running from tsunami to total calm...
I remember my dad taking a new International "SUV" out for a weekend back in the early 60's, maybe even the late 50's. He was a big fisher, and we had a fish camp about 20 miles away, complete with muddy dirt roads that my mom was always managing to get stuck in. I liked it a lot but I was just a passenger in the back. Mom wound up with station wagons while the old man kept fishing out of his sedans. His partner had a cabin up there too, and he always had a Willys Jeepster around but I guess my dad liked the ride of the sedans better.
The International SUV was a Scout. They also had a Suburban-like vehicle called a Travelall. International was ahead of its time. Back then, SUVs weren't the plush soccer-mommy vehicles of today. They were very basic with rubber floor mats and vinyl seats and most likely equipped with manual transmissions.
"Back in the day, people who bought SUVs were primarily sportsmen - hunters and anglers - hence the "sport" in sport utility vehicle."
Can't remember the name of it. But, In days of yore, when Jeep brought out their P/U Truck size wagon, many folks bought them as a status symbol.
This was years before GM, Ford, or Chrysler introduced theirs.
The things had available 4WD. and were in competition with something that International had out. Except the Jeep was more plush.
Then, later, Jeep introduced the smaller Cherokee, Ford with the Bronco then the Bronco II, and Chevy had their two sizes. I don't remember when the "SUV" stigma caught on or which car company coined it.
GMC Terrain vs Toyota RAV4 - right now, about a $3,000.00 gap between them if you buy the car. The RAV is about 1/3 cheaper to lease. GM stopped giving cars away about 5 years ago; Toyota's just started this year.
OK, the workers, backed by the UAW did poor work. Isn't it still management's job to fix that? Surely, that's why the stockholders hired them. [Granted, the union had a lot of clout - read: strike back in the day].
GMC Terrain vs Toyota RAV4 - right now, about a $3,000.00 gap between them if you buy the car. The RAV is about 1/3 cheaper to lease. GM stopped giving cars away about 5 years ago; Toyota's just started this year.
I'd expect the Terrain to be more expensive the the Rav4. I'd think the Rav would be more of a direct competitor to the Equinox, but the price is certainly close enough with the Terrain. The Terrain just wasn't the first thing I thought of when I was thinking Toyota vs. GMC.
Finance/lease is an area where GM is uncompetitive and why they are buying Americredit. I'd still be willing to bet a Rav4 has a higher residual than a Terrain, plus Toyota is probably subsidizing the lease to some extent.
Not that I'd buy a car based on a mag comparison, but C&D did an 8 way small SUV test and the RAV4 came in 1st (v6 model) and the Terrain (SLE v6) was 6th. It worth noting that the RAV4 with a 3.5 v6 offers much better acceleration and better fuel economy vs the 3.0 v6 in the Terrain (6.4 v 7.5 0-60 and 21 vs 24 observed mileage). Why GM developed that engine is beyond me, it never seems to get any better mileage vs. the 3.6 and it can't be that much cheaper to manufacture. C&D
I don't know how the 4cyl models would compare, but I've briefly driven a 4cyl 2010 Equinox and I couldn't live with that buzz box. To be fair, I haven't driven the 4cyl competition and I haven't owned a 4cyl vehicle in a long time.
They were very basic with rubber floor mats and vinyl seats and most likely equipped with manual transmissions.
My old man tended to buy automatics but that description fits the sedans he drove too.
His first new car was a '49 Ford, followed by a '53 Buick, a Valiant and another Ford. I don't think he would have set foot in a Simca or VW Bug that came out when he was around.
My mom drove a GMC pickup for years and years, but my dad, in spite of going fishing all the time, always drove sedans.
OK, the workers, backed by the UAW did poor work. Isn't it still management's job to fix that?
It is, but I would imagine that's a tall order when your dealing with labor contracts that are overly restrictive. I believe both sides share the blame, but even though I'm not pro union in any way, management at GM has been horrible over the past 40 years.
Hopefully for GMs sake, the culture received a major shakeup after going through bankruptcy. If that doesn't wake them up, nothing will.
One thing I noticed about Wagoneers is that they were very susceptible to rust. Jeep also had a full-sized Cherokee based on the Wagoneer in the 1970s.
OK, the workers, backed by the UAW did poor work. Isn't it still management's job to fix that? Surely, that's why the stockholders hired them. [Granted, the union had a lot of clout - read: strike back in the day].
Agreed. But the unions held guns to management heads many times. To pretend that the unions are not responsible at all is ridiculous. BOTH management and the unions are reaping the rewards of the past 30 years of stupidity on their part.
Asian and European automakers are able to offer lease terms because the residual value, as in any stable financial transaction envolving an asset over time, is predictable. Accordingly, they may take fairly predictable risk. Ford, is just getting back into leasing because they, too, are now able to make an acceptable risk analysis based upon residual value. Believe me. They are far from giveaways.
Absolutely. 95% of the responsibility for the state of the American automobile industry lies squarely in the lap of management. They were the representatives of shareholders and customers sitting across the table from labor at contract negotiations and work rule negotiations. But, oh heaven forbid that a manager would risk his bonus by forcing an issue to arbitration or even strike.
The rule of operation was to stick it to the public by feeding them crap for 40 years and management could avoid managing.........and, they did that.
Those Wagoneers did become an upmarket suburban machine in the 80s, gaining wood siding, leather, etc - there's still a following for the later deluxe cars today. But they also still sold to sportsmen - unlike the pretentious bloatmobiles of today.
Hard to determine when the SUV cliche really hit its stride...Exploder probably did it.
Both 4 cyl trucks have decent power. Both "buzz" about the same as any small V6 and are almost as smooth, IMO. Driven conservatively, they WILL deliver 30mpg or so, as advertised. People who buy the V6 versions COULD get similar mpg to the I4's, but not if they take advantage of the extra power's fun factor that they paid for. GM's leases seem to be high because of somewhat higher MSRP's; MUCH lower residuals [<50% vs 65%], and, mostly, due to a refusal to subsidize them as much as Toyota does. However, the Terrain/Equinox SUV's are much nicer inside.
Not to beat the GM dead horse any further, but, IF management had been able to come up with the kind of world-beating designs that the foreign competition did, they might have done a LOT better, despite their dismal quality control. Just my EVSHO.
Both "buzz" about the same as any small V6 and are almost as smooth
Well in my experience, the 4 cylinder in the Equinox I drove buzzed and groaned far more than ANY modern v6 I've sampled large or small. Maybe something was wrong with my friends '10 Equinox, but it has 18k on it and it vibrates excessively (IMO) when idling with the A/C on and seemed crude overall to me. Maybe a CRV or RAV4 4cyl will do the same thing, I don't know.
I did like the interior of the Equinox, it is exceptional considering it's a Chevy.
When I see a 4WD Rav 4, I think about how it costs nearly as much as my 4X4 ext cab. My next thought is how profitable the Rav 4 must be for Toyota. Half the size, half the engine, half the towing capability, yet nearly same OTD price as Silverado.
GM driven off a cliff by mgmt 2-4 yrs ago? What does that mean? Anything like the whole US being driven off a cliff too?
FWIW, dieselone, I agree with you about the Equinox I4's poor idle with the A/C on. The Terrain I drove was smoother; strange, since the engines are supposed to be identical. Different mapping of their engine computers? Sample variation? Either way, such lack of refinement is unacceptable to me. Toyota's current I4 [new in 2009] is, however, as smooth as any V6 I've driven, even at A/C idle.
sounds like it is broken to me. Ask him if it acted that way when new. My 2.4 Malibu is as smooth as any competitor's I4. I think it is the same drivetrain. My 179k mile 15 yr old Buick sounds way better than that Equinox. Last year my friend tried to start it after he already did.
Saw a '11 Sonata parked next to me last week. It looked sharp. Much better than the '10 in looks.
When I see a 4WD Rav 4, I think about how it costs nearly as much as my 4X4 ext cab. My next thought is how profitable the Rav 4 must be for Toyota. Half the size, half the engine, half the towing capability, yet nearly same OTD price as Silverado.
Well that's an apples and oranges comparison. You can say the same thing regarding your Silverado vs an Equinox. They are not trucks, but basically cars (would you say the same thing as a Malibu, Lacrosse, or Equinox). The v6 RAV4 runs 0-60 in the mid 6 second range and the qtr mile under 15 seconds and can get mid 20's mpg hwy, not to mention how much better a RAV/Equinox drives. No 5.3 powered truck will come close to any of those numbers.
Dave, I agree with you that a $30,000.00 RAV4 Limited I4 is poor value compared to a similarly priced Silverado EXT 4X4. But the RAV I'm looking at is a Base I4 AWD RAV4 with a MSRP of about $24,000.00. OTD = about $21K. If I wanted the haulin'/towin' capability of the Chevy, it would be in my driveway yesterday.
Dave, I agree with you that a $30,000.00 RAV4 Limited I4 is poor value compared to a similarly priced Silverado EXT 4X4
Not if you never haul anything and I've yet to sit in the back of an extended cab truck and been happy about it, I would hope the rear seat of a Rav4 or Equinox is far more comfortable than the rear seat of an extended cab PU. What kind of Silverado can you get for $30k? According to the Chevy website an LS Ext cab Silvy with the 4.8 v8 4wd starts at $33.5K. Now if you need to haul or tow anything then yeah, the PU makes more sense.
Not to mention that the AWD system in a Rav/Equinox is much better than the standard system used in a pickup for on road use.
GM driven off a cliff by mgmt 2-4 yrs ago? What does that mean? Anything like the whole US being driven off a cliff too?
Yes, the economy was driven off a cliff.
GM was more driven down a steep hill, gaining speed over 30 years and having handling issues as it got faster and faster. With Wagoner at the wheel, the wheels were bouncing on boulders. Lutz in the back seat screams "We're doing great!" as the jalopy hits 150mph. Then Wagoner says "Bankruptcy would be too detrimental" as he bails out the door with $20 million dollars or so. Then the GM car careens into a gully and rolls 5 times before coming to a burning stop....
The wheelbase, interior width, road noise damping and headroom of a Silverado are in a league above the Rav 4. The best ride in a Silv. comes with 800 lbs load in the bed, not empty. Incentives have $5-7k off Silverados over last couple months. Does the 33.5k Chevy website include that?
Not to mention..AWD system in a Rav/Equinox is much better than the standard system used in a pickup for on road .? Are you kidding? a 4WD system that tows 2 Rav 4's is 2nd to the system on the Rav 4? In what way?
What is the 'non-off-road truck with 4WD you are referring to?
Back when I paid mid 23's for my 4X4, (had MSRP of $31k) how much less would a 4 WD Rav 4 have been?
No, I don't think the 33.5K starting price includes incentives, but at the same time good luck finding a extended cab 4x4 model with no options. I was looking at f150's the other day and unless it was a 2wd xlt I couldn't find one for under $40k at my local Ford dealer.
The best ride in a Silv. comes with 800 lbs load in the bed, not empty LOL, who want's to drive around all day with an extra 800lbs in the bed. I really need a 3/4 ton truck to safely tow my camper and the fact that we are planning on buying a bigger boat. My problem is I can't stand how any of them ride/drive. IMO they're horrible unless loaded down and I don't want to put up with that M-F when I'm not hauling/towing anything.
Are you kidding? a 4WD system that tows 2 Rav 4's is 2nd to the system on the Rav 4? In what way?
I'm not talking about off road ability or the strength of the system. I'm talking about having the ability to use an auto/AWD mode when the roads are potentially slick, but not slick enough to use 4wd due to binding in the transfer case. The automode that SUV's have like my Expedition and the Suburban I had are great for on road use in slushy/icy and light snow. If the road clears up you don't have to put in in 2hi unless I choose to and it is safe to use on dry pavement too.
When I'm launching my boat, I can put my Expe in 4wd auto and turn all I want while backing down the ramp and everything is engaged. With a standard pickup 4wd system, I'd have to wait to engage 4hi until I was completely in a strait line or the binding would be brutal on dry asphalt with 5k lbs of boat on back. Even if the ramp area is wet, it's still not slick enough to prevent binding in the 4wd system.
I think the GMC Sierra Denali 1/2 ton might offer the same 4wd system as in the Tahoe/Suburban, but the lower trim trucks are simply 2hi/4hi/4lo with no ability in the transfer case to transfer torque to the front wheels on demand.
Back when I paid mid 23's for my 4X4, (had MSRP of $31k) how much less would a 4 WD Rav 4 have been?
I have no idea. My point is that we are comparing two totally different vehicles. Most people prefer how something like an Equinox/Rav4 etc drives vs. a BOF truck/SUV. Everything is a compromise, you do give up something in order to have payload and towing capacity.
What is the 'non-off-road truck with 4WD you are referring to?
I was referring to the 4wd/AWD systems that have the ability to transfer torque front and back and some can transfer torque to the individual wheel with the most traction. Those systems are better for on road use than the simple but tough p/u 4wd systems that simply use the transfer case to lock in at 50/50 torque split.
Comments
I thought big useless SUVs and oversized shoddy houses were the "American dream".
Unfortunately, many don't make enough. But I too see many people who make solid wages $30+/hr that don't save any money. But don't hesitate to buy a 3/4 ton diesel truck and a 35' fifth wheel trailer. Something goes wrong and they're complaining they don't have any money. Go figure.
My wife had an employee that just went through personal bankruptcy. She makes over $130k/yr. I guess she needs a raise.
I'd say that is one of many factors.
I thought big useless SUVs and oversized shoddy houses were the "American dream".
I know everyone likes to beat up on SUVs, but a few of us actually use them for something other than going to the store or intimidating Prius drivers;) Okay, the latter can be fun too:)
But, it's those bad habits of conspicuous consumption and living beyond your means that also helps to make people rich. While the masses are flocking to the stores to get their Iphones, Ipad Maxis, or whatever, it's sending the share price of Apple through the roof, which benefits the investors. And all those credit card interest fees and late charges, etc, are running up the share price of Visa, Mastercard, etc. Buying too much house and then struggling to make the payments benefits the big banks as well...until the market implodes, at least. And then, it's that volatility that helps you make good money in REIT's, if you time it right. And then the paranoia of global economic collapse drives the price of gold up. And with the now-deflated real estate prices, I could actually afford to go buy one of the once-overpriced McMansions up the street, and ride that golden pony all the way into the market's recovery...if and when that finally happens.
If everybody suddenly started living beneath their means, I'm sure it would have a profound effect on the economy. A lot of lower and middle-class people would be in a much better position, but a lot of the wealthy wouldn't be as well-off either, since their stocks and other investments didn't shoot up as much, as a result of all that consumption.
Maybe we ought to be putting more limits on declaring bankruptcy. With that income, unless it is a major medical issue, let her work her way out of it! It's one thing to go broke because of an emergency situation. Quite another if the emergency is that you are broke.
I know everyone likes to beat up on SUVs, but a few of us actually use them for something other than going to the store or intimidating Prius drivers;) Okay, the latter can be fun too:)
My stepdad just bought a Prius, the nerd! Wanna go bully him around some for me? :P
Absolutely.
Take the wealth away from the top 20% and give it to the other 80% and I'd bet at some point in the future, many of the original top 20% will be back on top again.
The track record of lottery winners certainly gives some credence.
LOL, You probably could just put in the truck of you PA;)
That's what I thought.
30 or 40 years ago people used SUVs for their intended purpose too...in fact, almost all who drove them did. That vehicle somehow becoming a commuter rig is closely linked to personal financial idiocy, however.
It's also those who profit from it who drive conspicuous consumption via media manipulation. It's a pretty transparent game, brainwashing people into feeling worthless unless they have the latest "designed in California" gadget or most pointless American made SUV.
This way way back in 2005, and he was making $103K per year with overtime. When that OT got cut, and he was reduced to $87K, he had to declare bankruptcy! He managed to amass $469K worth of debt by that time, as well.
That's a sad state of affairs when someone lives so close to the edge like that, that a 15-16% cut in salary could send him into bankruptcy. And I'm sure that he's not the exception to the rule.
That's how I see it.
No it's not. My FIL had several mill buddies that were pretty much in the same situation (well maybe not that extreme). When things slowed down in the late '99 and into '00, o/t was cut first. His working buddies were pretty much screwed then as many of them relied on o/t. Then when LTV finally declared BK and laid everyone off, they were in real trouble. How you can work someplace making 70-100k/yr in the 90's and not save a penny is inexcusable.
Regards,
OW
In a strange case that rallied pro- and anti-union advocates equally, the Chrysler Group LLC announced that it has fired 13 assembly-line employees and suspended two others after the United Auto Workers union workers were videotaped
by Fox2 Detroit drinking and using marijuana during a lunch break at the Jefferson North assembly plant in Detroit that builds the Jeep Grand Cherokee.
Chrysler worker drinks in car.jpgMany saw the incident as yet another black eye for unionized workers in general and the American auto industry in particular, one that reinforces long-held perceptions that worker skill and discipline and overall product quality at domestic auto plants is inferior. Others saw it as representing a standard that does not apply to most of the white-collar workforce.
New Reality - Get Used to it, my UAW Freinds
Regards,
OW
Often people can buy what they WANT to buy...if they WANTED to save they could...
fezo: "If everybody suddenly started living beneath their means, I'm sure it would have a profound effect on the economy."...yes, but it would be a very good effect...no one has ever proven to me why our economy must grow at 3-4% to be "healthy" instead of a steady 1-2%...so fewer homes are built (so we really don't need as many building contractors), fewer iPhones are bought (so Apple stock doesn't skyrocket, big deal), fewer $40K pickup trucks are sold (so the auto industry would have had a smaller work force and those "unneeded" workers would have worked elsewhere and never seen the floor of a GM factory)...
All that would happen if folks lived within their means is that the economy would probably avoid those "superboom" years that are always followed by "superbust" years when everyone thinks the world is falling apart...and the economy would not make the headlines like it does, both boom and bust because the up and down extremes would be smaller, like small waves on the ocean rather than running from tsunami to total calm...
Can't remember the name of it. But, In days of yore, when Jeep brought out their P/U Truck size wagon, many folks bought them as a status symbol.
This was years before GM, Ford, or Chrysler introduced theirs.
The things had available 4WD. and were in competition with something that International had out. Except the Jeep was more plush.
Then, later, Jeep introduced the smaller Cherokee, Ford with the Bronco then the Bronco II, and Chevy had their two sizes. I don't remember when the "SUV" stigma caught on or which car company coined it.
Kip.
I'd expect the Terrain to be more expensive the the Rav4. I'd think the Rav would be more of a direct competitor to the Equinox, but the price is certainly close enough with the Terrain. The Terrain just wasn't the first thing I thought of when I was thinking Toyota vs. GMC.
Finance/lease is an area where GM is uncompetitive and why they are buying Americredit. I'd still be willing to bet a Rav4 has a higher residual than a Terrain, plus Toyota is probably subsidizing the lease to some extent.
Not that I'd buy a car based on a mag comparison, but C&D did an 8 way small SUV test and the RAV4 came in 1st (v6 model) and the Terrain (SLE v6) was 6th. It worth noting that the RAV4 with a 3.5 v6 offers much better acceleration and better fuel economy vs the 3.0 v6 in the Terrain (6.4 v 7.5 0-60 and 21 vs 24 observed mileage). Why GM developed that engine is beyond me, it never seems to get any better mileage vs. the 3.6 and it can't be that much cheaper to manufacture.
C&D
I don't know how the 4cyl models would compare, but I've briefly driven a 4cyl 2010 Equinox and I couldn't live with that buzz box. To be fair, I haven't driven the 4cyl competition and I haven't owned a 4cyl vehicle in a long time.
My old man tended to buy automatics but that description fits the sedans he drove too.
His first new car was a '49 Ford, followed by a '53 Buick, a Valiant and another Ford. I don't think he would have set foot in a Simca or VW Bug that came out when he was around.
My mom drove a GMC pickup for years and years, but my dad, in spite of going fishing all the time, always drove sedans.
It is, but I would imagine that's a tall order when your dealing with labor contracts that are overly restrictive. I believe both sides share the blame, but even though I'm not pro union in any way, management at GM has been horrible over the past 40 years.
Hopefully for GMs sake, the culture received a major shakeup after going through bankruptcy. If that doesn't wake them up, nothing will.
Agreed. But the unions held guns to management heads many times. To pretend that the unions are not responsible at all is ridiculous. BOTH management and the unions are reaping the rewards of the past 30 years of stupidity on their part.
The rule of operation was to stick it to the public by feeding them crap for 40 years and management could avoid managing.........and, they did that.
Those Wagoneers did become an upmarket suburban machine in the 80s, gaining wood siding, leather, etc - there's still a following for the later deluxe cars today. But they also still sold to sportsmen - unlike the pretentious bloatmobiles of today.
Hard to determine when the SUV cliche really hit its stride...Exploder probably did it.
That and/or the Jeep Grand Cherokee.
Well in my experience, the 4 cylinder in the Equinox I drove buzzed and groaned far more than ANY modern v6 I've sampled large or small. Maybe something was wrong with my friends '10 Equinox, but it has 18k on it and it vibrates excessively (IMO) when idling with the A/C on and seemed crude overall to me. Maybe a CRV or RAV4 4cyl will do the same thing, I don't know.
I did like the interior of the Equinox, it is exceptional considering it's a Chevy.
GM driven off a cliff by mgmt 2-4 yrs ago? What does that mean? Anything like the whole US being driven off a cliff too?
Saw a '11 Sonata parked next to me last week. It looked sharp. Much better than the '10 in looks.
Well that's an apples and oranges comparison. You can say the same thing regarding your Silverado vs an Equinox. They are not trucks, but basically cars (would you say the same thing as a Malibu, Lacrosse, or Equinox). The v6 RAV4 runs 0-60 in the mid 6 second range and the qtr mile under 15 seconds and can get mid 20's mpg hwy, not to mention how much better a RAV/Equinox drives. No 5.3 powered truck will come close to any of those numbers.
I've seen a white limited trim '11 Sonata running around town and it does look pretty good.
Not if you never haul anything and I've yet to sit in the back of an extended cab truck and been happy about it, I would hope the rear seat of a Rav4 or Equinox is far more comfortable than the rear seat of an extended cab PU. What kind of Silverado can you get for $30k? According to the Chevy website an LS Ext cab Silvy with the 4.8 v8 4wd starts at $33.5K.
Now if you need to haul or tow anything then yeah, the PU makes more sense.
Not to mention that the AWD system in a Rav/Equinox is much better than the standard system used in a pickup for on road use.
Yes, the economy was driven off a cliff.
GM was more driven down a steep hill, gaining speed over 30 years and having handling issues as it got faster and faster. With Wagoner at the wheel, the wheels were bouncing on boulders. Lutz in the back seat screams "We're doing great!" as the jalopy hits 150mph. Then Wagoner says "Bankruptcy would be too detrimental" as he bails out the door with $20 million dollars or so. Then the GM car careens into a gully and rolls 5 times before coming to a burning stop....
Exactly! GM embodies the "drive" off the cliff but there are many other failures particularly the government.
Just means GM represents the worst in the auto industry performance leading to death at the bottom of the C11 Cliff.
As GM goes, so goes the USA. That's what it means.
Regards,
OW
Not to mention..AWD system in a Rav/Equinox is much better than the standard system used in a pickup for on road .? Are you kidding? a 4WD system that tows 2 Rav 4's is 2nd to the system on the Rav 4? In what way?
What is the 'non-off-road truck with 4WD you are referring to?
Back when I paid mid 23's for my 4X4, (had MSRP of $31k) how much less would a 4 WD Rav 4 have been?
No, I don't think the 33.5K starting price includes incentives, but at the same time good luck finding a extended cab 4x4 model with no options. I was looking at f150's the other day and unless it was a 2wd xlt I couldn't find one for under $40k at my local Ford dealer.
The best ride in a Silv. comes with 800 lbs load in the bed, not empty
LOL, who want's to drive around all day with an extra 800lbs in the bed. I really need a 3/4 ton truck to safely tow my camper and the fact that we are planning on buying a bigger boat. My problem is I can't stand how any of them ride/drive. IMO they're horrible unless loaded down and I don't want to put up with that M-F when I'm not hauling/towing anything.
Are you kidding? a 4WD system that tows 2 Rav 4's is 2nd to the system on the Rav 4? In what way?
I'm not talking about off road ability or the strength of the system. I'm talking about having the ability to use an auto/AWD mode when the roads are potentially slick, but not slick enough to use 4wd due to binding in the transfer case. The automode that SUV's have like my Expedition and the Suburban I had are great for on road use in slushy/icy and light snow. If the road clears up you don't have to put in in 2hi unless I choose to and it is safe to use on dry pavement too.
When I'm launching my boat, I can put my Expe in 4wd auto and turn all I want while backing down the ramp and everything is engaged. With a standard pickup 4wd system, I'd have to wait to engage 4hi until I was completely in a strait line or the binding would be brutal on dry asphalt with 5k lbs of boat on back. Even if the ramp area is wet, it's still not slick enough to prevent binding in the 4wd system.
I think the GMC Sierra Denali 1/2 ton might offer the same 4wd system as in the Tahoe/Suburban, but the lower trim trucks are simply 2hi/4hi/4lo with no ability in the transfer case to transfer torque to the front wheels on demand.
Back when I paid mid 23's for my 4X4, (had MSRP of $31k) how much less would a 4 WD Rav 4 have been?
I have no idea. My point is that we are comparing two totally different vehicles. Most people prefer how something like an Equinox/Rav4 etc drives vs. a BOF truck/SUV. Everything is a compromise, you do give up something in order to have payload and towing capacity.
What is the 'non-off-road truck with 4WD you are referring to?
I was referring to the 4wd/AWD systems that have the ability to transfer torque front and back and some can transfer torque to the individual wheel with the most traction. Those systems are better for on road use than the simple but tough p/u 4wd systems that simply use the transfer case to lock in at 50/50 torque split.