[Subscribe to Daily Digest] |
[Profile/Gallery]
, Tue, 26 Nov 2002 14:08:52
Members do not see ads below this line. - Help Keep This Site Online - Signup
Well stated arguement, better than your first round.
I agree with most of your statements, but it is a matter of perspective.
Most, but not all manufacturer's will not stand by any warranty if the vehicle is taken "off-highway". Can't really blame them. Not the first time a manufacturer sell's a image, but won't stand behind it (zoom,zoom).
SUV's have two groups, truck and car based platforms. The car based are better, the truck based which are worse performers. I believe a distinction should be made since the car based platforms are typically more "traffic" friendly. More are starting to be car based vs using a production truck platform. There are also quite a few poor performer cars out there, especially the "ecobox" cars.
I quite agree that most you see only have one driver. I am no exception. But there are still times you need the space. For those times, I want the SUV. The other options are two trips, take two cars, rent a truck, or borrow a truck. Do you really expect me to do that? Gone are the days of throwing 3 kids under the hatch of my parents 240z and going to the store. Blame the "saving me from myself" laws that force large car seats and air bags that require I buy a big car.
I don't doubt you have seen studies. In my opinion, image is the key reason most people buy anything; it is what people are selling you, their image. Most people are vain. Look at SUV marketing and you'll see them selling a "outdoorsy" image to a "luxury" image. It is the same reason people buy sports cars, and "normal" cars. Even Saab does it with the happy driver image thing...(they just need to get better at it).
While we are on image, bumper height laws would tarnish the "image". Most SUV's with a low bumper would appear to look like a mini van (and it's bad associated image). Yes, standardizing would probably make things a little safer in low speed impacts, but a lower bumper would probably just crumple in a high speed incident. The only way to fix that is to lower the entire mass of the vehicle (which would make it a car or wagon). Also, it would change the look of sporty cars since their bumper lines would be raised. Image a Ferrari with a bumper mounted high....
Manufacturer's are making changes for the same reasons they always do. Money. Because SUV bashing is commonplace, the manufacturer's are making changes to be "politically correct" and sell more SUV's as kinder and gentler beast.
In my opinion, SUV's were created because of loopholes in the enviromental vehicle laws. They are not held to the same standard. Because of those laws, some of the land beast cars disappearred or had to have major modifications to bring them into compliance (like the Cadilacs (sp.). This forces those cars to become expensive to produce and forces the price up. Welcome the cheaply built SUV that can take over as the family wagon of bygone days of old. I actually think it's funny that the "save me from myself" laws typically don't really have the desired affect.
Manufacturer's will always produce what the people want to buy. In my opinion, the SUV image thing is about run out. Everyone wants to be an individual. My bet is the station wagon will make a huge comeback and possibly even the hatch (oh yeh, we got rid of that ;-)
Later,
Chris Fisher
posted by 199.174.253...
, Sun, 24 Nov 2002 18:29:06, Tue, 26 Nov 2002 14:08:52, Mon, 25 Nov 2002 19:45:08
No Site Registration is Required to Post - Site Membership is optional (Member Features List), but helps to keep the site online
for all Saabers. If the site helps you, please consider helping the site by becoming a member.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
