Yeah, gotta stick to my guns with the fluffy SUV thing. Its not a flame at all, they are great cars, but its a fine line between glorious excess and excessive glory.
I'm all about overkill. I know a guy who put a caddy 500 in a beetle (
http://www.wsu.edu/~426hemi/ ) That kinda stuff is just neat and fun in a fraternity kind of way. But once it leaves the unique and individual realm, it becomes a Canyonero. Click on my link below for the 1966 Bonneville and you'll see some serious overkill, but with responsibility.
I guess my problem with SUVs and fluff trucks is that you take a vehicle that has an ultimate purpose (historically) of being useful, then add more gas guzzleness (thats a real word by the way), add leather, slam it to the ground, put completely inappropriate rubber and wheels on it, and you have a vehicle that tries to emulate the comfort of a luxury car in exchange for removing much of its usefulness... and don't give me that crap about "I haul stuff with mine". The bottom line is that if you need a truck, buy a 3/4 ton TRUCK. If you buy a lightning with 22" wheels, I dare you to use it as a TRUCK and then not cry when you lay a couch on the fender. If you want a rich luxury cruiser to show off your money, buy a Mercedes boat or a Lincoln Town Car. Just because the SUV costs $10,000 more doesn't make it better. My dad has two 1-ton trucks. They both have leather because they don't hold caked-on dirt like cloth, but he uses them. One is a dedicated mountain logging crawler, and the other is a dedicated tow vehicle. He didn't put 24" 'rimzz' on it and he has E-rated rubber instead of 335/35WR24s. They are trucks, and yes, they cost $35,000, but that's because he needed a truck. And by the way, he made the environmentally, financially, and oil dependency wise choice of getting diesels in both.
A good example, In 95 my sister bought an S10 blazer with cloth seats and the vortec. For less money I bought a new 96 Impala SS. LT1 V8 instead of V6, Leather instead of cloth, handling instead of slop, 25 mpgs instead of 16, nearly 300 hp instead of 180, 13-seconds in the quarter instead of 16, resale value instead of cookie-cutter market share, and sooo much more interior room. She used her blazer to haul her kids. I think the SS would have been a better choice, but she fell for the marketing that said the SUV is a better choice for her safety. Grrrr. This is the same marketing that convinced us in 1982 that front wheel drive and unibodies were better than a frame and rear wheel drive. Double Grrrr.
I know its a matter of preference, but I hate it when they take a product that has no right being where it is, slapping leather and ass warmers on it and convincing the world that they need it.
I know I'll get flamed for this, but the true reasons for the SUV marketing push is this: Auto makers and government don't really mix so well. The original push for SUVs was to convince the public that they needed a high-consumption vehicle. Auto makers needed more time to meet CAFE standards and market pliability is something they can use to wedge the government to hold off on CAFE standards. If the public is lapping up gas guzzlers, you can't upset the market. That gives them more time to focus on the other vehicles. The public not only bought the marketing hook line and sinker, we swallowed it with a smile and asked for more. SUV prices shot through the roof and automakers haven't been happier. You think Daimler Benz was easy for Chrysler to buy? Heck no. SUV and truck sales have put them through the roof. GM owns Saab. Ford owns Jaguar. And I guarantee none of it would have happened without the SUV boom. I was a stockholder of four of those above six companies and in corporate sales for two of them. GM was on the brink of bankruptcy after a decade of Sunfires, Celebrities, and Cavaliers. They couldn't even afford to change their advertising for over 8 years.
I just can't think of ANY other reason than stature and social status to pay $10k more for a vehicle that can't excel at anything except drinking gasoline. (and maybe giving you a "commanding view of the road... jeesh) Almost nobody takes their $42,000 Expedition offroad, so why not spend it on something that rides nicely, handles better, is far more reliable, and is more rewarding to own? I just think that $40k can be spent much more wisely on a 7-series, Mercedes, or Lexus.
Or, buy an H2 which is just a $50k K2500 with a different body and ass warmers.
Yeah. Hummers, Expeditions, 'Burbs, and Durangos often are marketed with a mother and 2.5 kids at the grocery store. Chick car? Affirmative.
And my final quote: "SUVs are the Reality television of the automotive world. A scapegoat, band-aid fix that someone created as a brilliant marketing diversion, gladly accepted by the George H. Bush camp as a way of shifting the responsibility away from the true culpable parties, and all the big three had to do was tell us that we needed it. Just like reality TV, it costs half as much to make and makes twice as much as a script. I'm so happy to see Republican corporate America swimming in the profits of our stupidity." You can quote me on that shite right there.
Stepping off the soap box now.... but one last photo to drive the nail in my coffin:
