S.U.V's are going......going......gone!

lol I've been waiting for this for years. Gm's announcment about the plants and hummer is only the beginning.

So who do you think will be next to kill one of the worst ideas in history? After the current crop of SUVS run their product cycles out (two to three years) they will drop like flies.
lol god i'm happy.

the Armada/Infiniti beast is going out next year....

Plant is switching to delivery vehicles and such :)

Their other SUVs should drop as well :)


Waiting for Ford to announce the demise of the Expedition/Navigator now

maybe soon it will be safe enough to own a smart car :)

they're not much different than minivans. Both are a cheaper way to transport a group than using two small cars. For example, the 2WD Dodge Caravan, which has a max seating capacity of 7, gets 16 mpg in the city/23 hwy, while the 2WD Dodge Durango, which can seat up to 8, gets 14 city/19 hwy. The minivan is better but not THAT much better.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/sbs.htm

:woohoo:

none of these cars fare better mileage wise than an SUV. Yet you never hear the haters out there mentioning any of them.

And that's with the A/C running and us rolling along
at 72 or so MPH.

What's your SUV get?

Tesha

GMC ENVOY
ENGINE:

VORTEC 4.2L I6
(EPA Estimated MPG:
14 city/20 hwy 2WD;
14 city/20 hwy 4WD)
http://www.gmc.com/envoy/index.jsp?seo=goo
Audi A8

Gas Mileage: 16 mpg city / 23 mpg highway
Engine: 8 Cylinder, 4.2 Liter, 350 HP
Wheels: Alloy Wheels, 18-In. X 8.5-In.
Torque: 325 @3500 Seating: 5
Side Airbags: Standard ABS Brakes: Standard
http://www.autosite.com/content/research/searchresults/index.cfm/action/selecttrim/make_vch/Audi/model_vch/A8/virsection/summary

That its a lighter vehicle than the Envoy even though it has a powerful v8, but horsepower alone doesn't mean the car is going to be a total gas guzzler. Plus the fact that the EPA is rating autos REALLY low now only makes it seem like it will be a gas guzzler when in it will actually get better fuel milage. The old number on my car were 19/28, now the 08 numbers are 17/26 when it actually gets around 22mpg and has reached 31mpg on the interstate.

Look at the Corvettes, they have 400+hp 6.2 to 7.0 v8 engines, yet when driven normally they can get up to 30mpg easy on the highways, yet the new EPA rating says otherwise, I dont wouldn't even trust them . The old ratings were more accurate IMO.

yes, the computer on my Envoy displays my mileage as high as 39 mpg at certain times. My point was that SUVs and High performance cars get similar mileage and you never hear anyone screaming about them. Now if a High performance car was getting 15-20 more mpgs than an SUV then I would concede that they get better mileage but as I see it now, they don't.

Your Envoy is probably displaying instant fuel milage, when your accelerating it could be reading 10mpg or less, when decelerating, up to 40mpg. The Corvettes can do the same time.

All I'm saying is that in my experience with these cars, their not gas guzzlers like there made out to be by the 08 EPA numbers or what you say, this isn't the 1960's anymore when it comes to high performance cars.

Tell me, why am I getting 22mpg average from my 01 Trans Am, yet a fullsize SUV struggles to get 15mpg? Why am I getting 30mpg/HWY when an SUV struggles to get anymore than 20mpg in the same scenario? BTW, my work vehicle is an 04 Dodge Dakota, has a 4.7 v8 with 230hp, the Trans Am has a 5.7 350hp v8, I garantee you if that 4.7 was in my car, fuel milage wouldn't change, in a way it would my car heavier, because the overall size of the 4.7 is much bigger. Its also all cast iron, whereas the LS1 in my car is all aluminum.

I just took mine out on the highway. I averaged 23 mpg at 60-65 and 26-27 mpg at 68 with the cruise control set.

I mean come on... They get about the same as most regular cars in general which is in the low 20's and then much better on the highways.

"high performance cars like the Audi, Lexus, BMW and Mercedes; none of these cars fare better mileage wise than an SUV. Yet you never hear the haters out there mentioning any of them."

That was my only point. I'm sick and tired of hearing people bitch about SUV's when some of the cars that they are driving are just as bad. I'm not judging or hating on anybody, I'm just giving a little back to the haters.

That isn't so good...

:rofl:

My 01 Trans Am with the 350hp v8 averages around 22mpg and has reached 31mpg on the interstate.

my dad's 325I is about 22 years old.

The MPG highway on that car is four miles UNDER my four year old hybrid Civic.

Which also bets the question why were they allowed to go back on the MPG over the last two decades

I might also mention this... see Europe HIGHER MPGS... across the board than in the US.

They have the technology, they just choose not to use it

Oh and I forgot, it is about 30 city, and 35 highway.

Our civic is about 35 city, 45 highway.

I see a 2 mpg difference in the GMC Envoy and the Audi A8. Not a big difference between that high performance car and my SUV. Of course, it's just my opinion.

There is really no comparison between the two cars. If you look at what is inside the two cars, they are world's apart. The 22 yo BMW likely lacks lot of the features in your Civic. (And don't complain if I get some feautres incorrect that are common.) Some of the differences would inlcude airbags, ABS, traction control, computer controls for engine and cabin, side protection (4 doors), meeting improved government safety standards in a crash, etc. So all this technology and safety innovations add weight, and draw energy from the car. So the cars of 22 years ago simply cannot be manufactured and sold today.

for 2. Got rid of it solely because it got 8, yes 8 miles to the gallon.

And, it was a 2WD one as well. It sounded and handled like a truck. I hated that thing.

...and has been known to get 28 or 29 if we really
"work it".

I laugh when people whine at me: "But minivans get just
as lousy mileage as SUVs!!!". Like Hell they do!

Tesha

seven years.

And, I carpool with the kids all the time, which is why I bought a new one. I also combine errands, so that a tank of gas for me lasts at least two weeks if not more.

:hi:

:hi:

and I think that works out to 20 mpg with our 6cyl Caravan, so our numbers are comparable to yours.

Sid

Honda Odyssey minivan vs. Honda Pilot SUV:

2007 Honda Odyssey minivan
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do?action=browseList2&make=Honda&model=Odyssey
6 cyl, 3.5 L, Automatic 5-spd, Regular Gasoline, CLKUP
EPA ratings: 16 city, 23 highway, 18 combined

2007 Honda Pilot SUV 2WD
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do?action=browseList2&make=Honda&model=Pilot%202WD
6 cyl, 3.5 L, Automatic 5-spd, Regular Gasoline, CLKUP
EPA ratings: 16 city, 22 highway, 18 combined

Minivans only get significantly better mileage if you compare apples and oranges (e.g., unibody 2WD V6 minivans to body-on-frame V8 SUV's, instead of unibody 2WD V6 SUV's).

In terms of weight and frontal area, minivans and unibody SUV's are pretty comparable, so equipped with comparable engines they will get comparable mileage.

FWIW, my wife and I both drive cars that get better mileage than any minivan or SUV (a big reason we replaced our V6 Plymouth Voyager with a V6 sedan was fuel mileage). But the piousness of some minivan drivers looking down on drivers of small and midsize unibody SUV's is a bit unjustified; comparably equipped SUV's and minivans (in terms of size, engine, and towing capacity) get comparable mileage.

*AREN'T* unibody, they are body-on-frame vehicles.
And they include V8 engines suitable for towing.
And tires with more rolling resistance.

And so on and so on.

Generally speaking, I don't object to car-derived
unibody crossover vehicles with fully-independent
suspensions.

Tesha

So those bashing people who drive them should probably be more specific, or otherwise you may unintentionally be bashing a lot of people you don't mean to bash.

Most of them are neither cars nor minivans, really (though you could perhaps call the Ford Freestyle a minivan). "Sport/Utility Vehicle" does still describe something like a Honda CR-V or Ford Escape as well as it does a Suburban. Better, actually, since there's not much "sport" in a Suburban, IMO.

to the Toyota Matrix. I needed it because I require an electric cart to get around, it accomodated that and a portable lift, not to mention we were able to get six months worth of living stuff from a trip to Mayo in florida PLUS my cart, plus luggage on the luggage rack. I get about 28 city, and about 35 highway, sometimes more.

It is considered a sport, crossover vehicle, and I can get more in it than my friend's Highlander - so that shows you that small minivans CAN be fuel efficient and still do the job.

Most definitely.

What bugs me is the "minivan righteous, SUV evil" attitude displayed by some, when small minivan = small SUV, and big minivan = big unibody SUV, generally speaking. I don't even own an SUV, and the sanctimony bugs the heck of me.

FWIW, I can get more stuff in my current car (huge trunk, trunk pass-through, huge back seat) than we could get in the short-wheelbase Plymouth Voyager we used to own as well, and my car gets 8-10 mpg better mileage on the highway and 3-5 mpg better around town.

the pickles we are in: The 2008 Vibe is the last year model, for 09', they changed it, made it uglier and puta BIGGER ENGINE in the damn thing, thereby reducing the mileage!!! I couldn't believe it!! When we were at the dealer's looking at them I said to the guy: Boy, you guys really can't take a hint, can you?

The city mileage is the same, and the highway mileage is probably the same (1 mpg is within the margin of error of the EPA Highway test). The 2.4L engine is an extra-cost option only for those who want it.

on his lot had lower mileage and the larger engine, and we were told it was changed.

or was out of the 1.8's and told you that to try to get you to buy what he had. Or else he didn't know what he was talking about.

Here's the '09 Vibe web site, showing 1.8L as the base engine.

http://www.pontiac.com/09vibe/index.jsp

lie, the asshole. I am still dismayed at the new body style, the older version is much more stylish and had much more standard equipment - Mine came loaded with everything and just about every one had an electric sunroof, etc, and now I am noticing much more stripped down models for 09.

I still love my Vibe. It has only 74K on it so I probably wouldn't get a new one unless I could get what it is worth, which should be around 9K, the dealer (of course) wanted to give me 6500. (fat chance). I don't think I'd have any trouble selling it, they are so good on hauling stuff and mileage..................

n/t

I think that's pretty good. I easily get 27mpg on rural two lane highway driving (around 62mph) and on interstate trips driving 75-80 mph I get 24mpg (including the off highway and big city stop and go parts of the trip). I don't do any high mpg techniques, fwiw.

IIRC, the current EPA Highway test has a standing start, several accelerations and decelerations, and the average speed is only 48 mph. That tends to underestimate the mileage you'll get on the Interstate.


http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/cycles/hwfet.html

The numbers are still good at comparing one vehicle with another, though. They've been talking about revising the Highway test to include speeds up to 80 mph, A/C, and more steady-state stuff (which makes more sense), but I'm not sure if they've implemented it yet.

My car is rated at 19/27 (IIRC), but will do much better than that in steady-state driving at 70 or 75. A single stop will bring the average mileage down quite a bit, though.

and that's with the V-8, heavy duty towing package & fulltime four wheel drive...

just sayin'...

I dont see how that is possible. you are greatly exaggerating

I know what the little computer thingy on my visor says... and I know how to calculate how many miles I've driven with how many gallons it takes to fill back up since the last fill-up...

:eyes:

And average around 16mpg. Something's wrong with that Durango if its getting that low a fuel milage!

But don't spoil the fun for the SUV haters. There's one particular DUer who has posted anti SUV diatribes for years and come to find out they drive a sedan that he bragged gets 18 city 25 highway. A head scratcher for sure.


In all honesty, I think the frustration comes from so many 1 person per car commuters sitting on the freeway for hours a day. We want to condemn the commuter for their choice of car but this would be a non issue if jobs were spread out throughout the suburbs, or if housing near the jobs was actually affordable, or if public transport was more convenient and accessible.

We are much too quick to judge a person's overall energy consumption by looking at a car choice. Which makes no sense. We don't know if that person who finds they have no choice but to drive alone 20 miles into work every day tends to use far less in home climate control and electricity and water purification and everything else. These you can't tell from a car choice.

:shrug:

Honda Odyssey minivan vs. Honda Pilot SUV:

2007 Honda Odyssey minivan
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do?action=browseList2&make=Honda&model=Odyssey
6 cyl, 3.5 L, Automatic 5-spd, Regular Gasoline, CLKUP
EPA ratings: 16 city, 23 highway, 18 combined

2007 Honda Pilot SUV 2WD
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do?action=browseList2&make=Honda&model=Pilot%202WD
6 cyl, 3.5 L, Automatic 5-spd, Regular Gasoline, CLKUP
EPA ratings: 16 city, 22 highway, 18 combined

Combined mileage is the same, 18 mpg.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2001-06-15-toyota-minivan.htm

40 MPG but still has not been exported to the US

but as long as were going to change manufacturers to make our point.

The Kia Sedona minivan and Sorento SUV get similar mileage. Difference is, the minivan does it with a 3.8 as opposed to 3.3 liter engine, and seats 7 as opposed to five and more luggage room.

Now can we address my point? Is a twenty percent difference in highway mileage significant?

Think of it in terms of yearly fuel costs, for example.

Or taking one out of every five oil supertankers off
the the high seas.

Tesha

If you really want to make a difference, get a midsize sedan or wagon. I suspect most minivan drivers don't need 7-passenger seating any more often than an SUV owner needs giant mud-gripper tires.

A new 3.8 can be more efficient than an older-design 3.3, and power output may be similar. I picked the Honda example because in the case of the Hondas, the minivan and the SUV have essentially the same engine (3.5L) and probably the same transmission. In such an apples-to-apples comparison, the combined mileage is the same between the minivan and SUV, as it would be in most apples-to-apples comparisons.

A lot of "SUV's" are simply minivans by other names; if the Ford Freestyle had been introduced when minivans were considered hip, then it would have been called a minivan instead of an SUV. It's built on a car chassis, like minivans and newer-design SUV's, and is even shaped like a minivan:



Again, I don't own an SUV, I drive a sedan, so I'm not defending myself here. We used to own a minivan, but sold it in part because the mileage sucked compared to a car. It just bugs me when people who drive EPA-combined-18-mpg minivans look down on drivers of EPA-combined-18-mpg SUV's as if the latter are the scum of the earth.

They should drop the gas 6 and offer a diesel 6.

17 city and 25 highway. These figures represent a 13% improvment in highway mileage over the Pilot and an 8% over the standard Odyssey. You make an interesting point about the diesel, but it doesn't seem Honda has much interest in them.

if they implement them. The frontal areas, drag coefficients, and weight are pretty similar.

Transitioning to direct-injection would probably bump up the mileage by 10% or so, while at the same time increasing horsepower. I'm pretty sure they'll go that route soon, if they haven't already. I know GM is moving toward direct-injection as well.

minivans are generally boxy, but usually have enough rounded corners, slanted hoods and narrow front ends to get an acceptable figures. SUV are trending in this direction as they abandon their truck pasts, but extra ground clearance its effect.

same city mileage, and the Odyssey beats the Pilot by only 1 mpg highway (you'd probably see that much difference between two Pilots or two Odysseys).

Per the EPA:

2007 Honda Odyssey minivan
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do?action=browseList2&make=Honda&model=Odyssey
6 cyl, 3.5 L, Automatic 5-spd, Regular Gasoline, CLKUP
EPA ratings: 16 city, 23 highway, 18 combined

2007 Honda Pilot SUV 2WD
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do?action=browseList2&make=Honda&model=Pilot%202WD
6 cyl, 3.5 L, Automatic 5-spd, Regular Gasoline, CLKUP
EPA ratings: 16 city, 22 highway, 18 combined

The EPA highway cycle's average speed is only ~48mph, so drag coefficient isn't a huge player. At 80 mph on the Interstate, you might see a little more difference, but probably not a whole lot; at those Reynolds numbers, both the Odyssey and Pilot are pretty draggy. Gearing and tire type will probably make a bigger difference, I suspect.

at least do the apples to apples comparison you mentioned in other posts.

The two wheel drive Pilot comes with Honda's VCM engine management system. The versions of the Odyssey equipped with VCM get 17 city and 25 highway. These are for the most recent model year. That's almost 15 percent difference highway.

gets 18 city, 24 highway. Not far off the VCM-equipped Odyssey.

http://corporate.honda.com/press/article.aspx?id=2006082839553

The new method gives numbers of 16 city 22 highway. You can easily confirm this by going to fueleconomy.gov, selecting a side by side comparison, and selecting the 2007 two wheel drive Pilot. Both sets of figures will be shown. Also, your link confirms that the two wheel drive Pilot uses VCM. That's the vehicle you were comparing to the Odyssey, correct?

That may have been an error on the EPA page, but that was what I went with, a side by side comparison of the 2007 non-VCM Odyssey with the 2007 non-VCM (per the EPA) Pilot, which gave the numbers I stated, with the same combined mileage for both the Odyssey and Pilot. The EPA does list the 2008 Pilot as having VCM, but the mileage isn't changed, so that may indicate that their 2007 page was indeed in error on that.

I just ran a comparison of the 2008 Odyssey with VCM and the 2008 Pilot with VCM; EPA Combined for the Pilot is 18mpg, for the Odyssey it's 20. So you are right, the Odyssey does get about 10% better overall mileage if you get the VCM model, even though they have the same engine (3.5L V6, VCM), same tuning and horsepower (244), same curb weight (~4400), same transmission, and similar frontal area. I suspect that it's because the Pilot is geared slightly lower (possibly a concession to towing), and drag coefficient could also play a role in the highway figures (given that both of them have barn-like frontal areas). I do see that the Pilot is half a second faster to 60 than the Odyssey, which suggests gearing and possibly RWD give it an acceleration advantage, even though they use the same hardware.

Personally, I drive a sedan, and wouldn't want an SUV or a minivan; I like to drive, not feel like I'm navigating a barge. My dream car is a Volvo S40T5 with the 6-speed manual, but that wouldn't work for someone with a huge family, I know.



But still, it really bugs me when people driving huge 4400-lb, 18-mpg minivans look down their noses at people driving 3300-lb, 24-mpg SUV's like the latter are the scum of the earth. Not all SUV's are Hummers or Expeditions.

You should check out the Pontiac G8.

The next car I buy will be a manual (and not an "autostick" either); I want 0-60 in under 7 seconds with decent fuel economy, 4 doors, good handling, and a fairly refined interior. The V6 G8 fits that bill except for the manual part; a 2004-2006 Volvo S40 T5 w/manual if I can find one (unless I can special-order a T5/5-speed from the factory, as they have dropped the 6-speed for '08, aaargh); a Mazdaspeed 6 (very nice); perhaps the new CTS w/3.6L V6 and a 6-speed manual, if I can afford one; or a used or new Acura TL. That's my wish list, anyway.

If I can't afford anything new, I may go looking for a 2004-ish CTS with a 3.6L and 6-speed.

Not only that, they're really close in price, just get the GT when manual is available and be done with it!:P As for fuel milage, I dont know what the v6 is getting, but GT owners currently are getting around close to 20mpg, sometimes less, but it could improve as the cars are still breaking in.

People buy minivans because they have to, and usually because they need to move several people. The SUVs tend to be status symbols, and I see the highways full of single commuters driving them. I don't begrudge parents their minivan to haul a bunch of rugrats, but I take issue with lone commuters driving the biggest hunks of metal they can find.

There are some good reasons to drive SUVs, though. To judge the drivers, we must look at the why.

Twenty-five miles to the gallon sounds good because we've grown accustomed to having that much energy available that cheap.

Just for a little perspective, consider:

BTU's per gallon of gasoline -- 115,000
BTU's per food calorie -- 0.226

You can bike 25 miles on a couple of 500-calorie meals -- 226 BTU's. Yet we think nothing of using a ton-and-a-half, two-hundred-horse tankmobile to haul our solitary carcasses the same distance. That's overdoing it by a factor of five hundred.

Wretched excess, much? And yet somehow we always find it so easy to rationalize.

dodge caravan, is a 4 cylinder. does that count?

they didn't fucking plan ahead and make some worthy mpg cars/trucks

then they wouldn't have to be closing up shop and laying anyone off.

then i vaguely remembered hearing/reading that these car companies were getting money/support from the fucking oil industry

so i figured--hey, what the fuck do they care that they're laying off people and shutting down a plant here or there? they got their advanced kickbacks. they certainly won't be hurting in the next year or two while they take their time and dick around trying to get a bette mpg on their fucking cars.

it's the employee who is gonna suffer.

American people and the auto employees were swindled. I agree with you man. This is just a harsh consequence.

You should see the mileage and the quality of some of the stuff ford and gm produce for europe.

Why do you hate SUV's? What if they were more fuel efficient, same as cars? Would you still hate them?

:sarcasm:

For reals... asshats

Weight and aerodynamics won't permit it.

Tesha

you really ought to check the facts before making an uninformed and incorrect statement.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

(though I won't ever drive an urban assault vehicle):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3337853&mesg_id=3337853

But will the Big Three EVER embrace the idea of a low maintenance 150 MPG SUV? Not on your life. They'd rather continue building their dinosaurs... in Mexico.

I saw an article a couple of weeks ago talking about how the value of OLDER used cars has increased upwards of over $2k.
The SUV's will end up on tote-the-note lots and the people least likely to be able to buy gas will end up with these cars.
And again...the have-nots will suffer while the haves enjoy their new energy efficient cars.

... but in a recent gas price article they noted that gas is about 12 cents a gallon in Venezuela, and SUVs are soaring in popularity there. Many of these lease turn-ins and auction vehicles may end up on ships headed south.

it, and it good condition, it needed a radiator, a valve job and a battery. It is a 5 speed and he is getting about 38 around town. He paid 1,000 for it. That was three months ago. The guy had two minivans sitting in his driveway and boy I bet he could kick himself now, since he was driving from northwest Atlanta all the way downtown!!

When you park next to one, you have no rear visibility. I can't tell you how many times I almost got whacked pulling out of a parking space because one or two of those fucking land yachts, which stick out a good 2-3 feet past my bumper, obstructed my side view.

Just another unnecessary and wasteful product of American "nice to have" culture.

driving through a parking lot you can't see when a small car is pulling out. And less dangerous but more infutiating, getting all excited about a good parking spot only to discover it is already taken.

Seems they're not! This would not have happened without them.

and people on a fixed income, like my mother. If effective mass transit were available, it wouldn't be quite as bad a hit.

not that common sense thing again!!!!!

:hi:

something my husband and I were discussing last night.

1. massive cut back on fuel usage
2. oil companies/refineries cut back on production
3. price does not go down.
4. the poor & middle class (are there any left at this point?) continue to get fucked.

we have no mass transit system up here either.

I want to buy 10 hummers when I win the lotto!!! :silly:

don't let the Vice Squad hear you say that :wow:

But you'll have to buy them on Ebay rather than
by going to down to "Big Al's House of Hummers".

(And "Big" Al, well, he was just keeping a secret
anyway.)

Tesha

and easier to get out of the parking spot if my car didn't get wedged between two way-too-big vehicles

are one of my complaints about them. That and that so many SUV drivers just don't know how to drive them. They should have to take road tests.

ever had..................

people are finally getting wise.

I mean, in general, I hate their incompetent cell phone blabbering owners who really have no reason other than the "mine's bigger than yours" reason for buying that Suburban. But, some folks use them to transport kids/pets, live in rural areas where dirt roads are the norm, or live somewhere it snows (or travel there). Some have a boat to haul or some other trailer. I guess if folks actually USE them for their intent, I could care less. It's the aforementioned morons with no business piloting more than a Civic on ability alone that I can't stand.

The Hummer is different, though. Absolutely no need for that thing.

Old Jeeps and Scouts and Grand Wagoneers and Suburbans. Only they got popular and a lot of people who had no need for them bought them. I think that's more the issue, not people who have four kids and horses and live at the end of a dirt road, but people who live in suburbia and never use the thing to do a job that couldn't be done in a Camry. There seem to be a lot more of the latter than the former.

Around here we have people (like my sister) who have to have an SUV because they go skiing or snowboarding twice a year, nevermind that the roads are plowed, the resorts are right off the highway, and unless you drive up mid-storm, your tires will never actually touch snow, let alone too much snow for a normal car. And the people who actually live in the ski resort areas all drive Subarus. :rofl:

brand new hummer and made sure I avoided getting anywhere near it because I figured its owner had to be insane. Gas around this part of So Cal is running over $4.40 a gallon for regular. Super was at $4.63 yesterday.

And it is not just SUVs getting low gas mileage, All cars are getting lower gas mileage. My 89 Dodge Daytona got better gas mileage than any of the new cars coming out today. WHY IS THAT?? Gas mileage should be getting better, not worse. They have done something to our technology to make cars use more gas when would could have easily gone the other way to 100 miles per gallon. Even motorcycles which use to get 80 mpg, now get 30-40. What is going on I wonder???

The engines actually have gained efficiency in the last twenty years but almost everything else has contributed to lowering efficiency. Right offhand I can't think of a single car model that has gotten smaller over the years, a Civic today is about as big as an Accord was when Accords first came out.

And motorcycles never got 100 mpg, it takes a very small bike ridden very conservatively to get that sort of mileage.. A real motorcycle, ridden on real roads with real traffic gets more like 40 to 70 mpg.

BMW and Harley both sell 650cc single cylinder street bikes that are capable of over 60 mpg in the real world.

It is the scam the oil companies are pulling on us. Think Enron- but they are doing it to the entire country.

We should not be hating on SUV drivers, we should be uniting to expose the big lie!

Just a suggestion.

I know it is shocking but not everyone lives in Manhattan. It's true. Ask around. Some people actually need a 4WD to get around in the wintertime. Now the Hummer is ridiculous. No one "needs" to drive a military vehicle, but we all know that the Hummer buyer is 40 something rich pro-war rightwinger who thinks it somehow makes up for his inevitable lack of military service. But in parts of the world where you need a 4wd, not every SUV driver is the antichrist.

Also, I will drive it to the new Metro parking lot once it is completed early next year.

I mean that's all well and good for you. But some people have tools or equipment or samples or employees they need to haul around and not everyone works the kind of job they can ride the metro to every day, hell few places in this country actually have public transportation anyway. Clearly it is irresponsible for some people to drive an SUV, but you can't simply say "I don't need one" so anyone who has one is a jerk. I don't have one, just for the record.

Loads of Crap. However, it is not a truck or a Suburban.



2.9-litre, 16-valve four-cylinder turbocharged, intercooled direct-injected diesel.

Power


120kW at 3800rpm (above average).

Main Options


Four-speed automatic, $2100; Trek'n'Tow kit, about $2000 (plus fitting); metallic/mica paint, $215/$225.

Economy


8-10 litres/100km highway, 13-14 litres/100km city (excellent)... That said, the Terracan will probably be OK with a heavy load on the back, which is really what the suspension kit is designed for.

The Terracan's 2.9-litre turbo diesel is contemporary technology all the way, powerful, refined and economical. The Hyundai is also spacious, practical, loaded with gear and carries a five-year/130,000km warranty... http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/ArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=9634


Now here's the KICKER... YOU CAN'T GET ONE IN AMERICA!

As usual the American consumer takes it on the chin. How frustrating. Well as the song says, despite all my rage I am still just a rat in a cage.

:cry:

But it is very good at what it does.

I see volvo and subaru and other AWD cars and wagons doing just fine in that respect. Not to mention some CUV's as well.

As far as towing goes, when you do see something getting towed its smaller than what Americans tow and its usually done by a diesel CAR of some kind.

The "need" for size is false.

The average snowfall in Syracuse, New York is 115 inches. How much is it where you live? Until you have lived everyone else's life in every place and in every circumstance, lecturing others on what they "need" or don't is more than a bit presumptuous. The distances traveled, the terrain and the snowfall in most of Europe and certain parts of the United States are completely different. That is not to say, and I have not suggested, that most of the people that have SUVs "need" them. But a contractor in Denver who needs to get himself and his crew and all of their equipment up into the mountains in a foot of snow to a job site pulling a trailer full of supplies is gonna need more than a Subaru. He would have to take 3 Subarus and burn even more gas and produce even more emissions.

SUVs. And a surprising number of them are BRAND NEW. Fools buying them, thinking they are such a bargain......as gas hits $4.33 (at the CHEAPEST place in town).

2003 v-star 650

'cause they're higher up off the ground. Thus, the Family Assault Vehicle is the prime target for these two fast-increasing types of theft. :nopity:

A plant in Canada and Mexico instead of two more in Michigan. My 2004 Chevy Aveo gets 29 in the city and I love driving by the fuel pump that says 4.09 a gallon.

The problem with small cars is that some asshole in a 6000 lb F350 can roll right over you.

I think we can relace the speed limit with a Momentum Limit.

Momentum is mass times velocity. So a car weighing 2000 lb would be allowed to go twice as fast as a 4000 lb car. Since people like to drive fast it would move them to smaller and smaller cars.

http://www.afstrinity.com/

I need an SUV for my work. I know they're coming, I wish I could get a plug-in hybrid SUV right now.