07b12516   
   XPost: alt.autos.toyota, rec.autos.driving, alt.society.liberalism   
   XPost: alt.fan.michael-moore   
   From: crwlrjeff@yahoo.com   
      
   "Harry K"  wrote in message   
   news:8d605482-aa79-4b94-9cfb-5289d0d9413f@k17g2000prf.googlegroups.com...   
   On Aug 30, 4:34 pm, necromancer - ECHM  wrote:   
   > On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 15:20:15 -0700 (PDT), "His Highness the   
   > TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock & the   
   > Stationary Bicycle to burn the calories"    
   > wrote:   
   >   
   > >The story goes that in the old times cars were regulated by CAFE   
   > >standards, and Congress somehow got around those regulations by   
   > >labeling the SUV a "truck"... Yes, they can be very clever when they   
   > >want.   
   >   
   > COngress didn't label them trucks. The automakers did by building   
   > SUV's on the same frame that they build their trucks on.   
   >   
   > >Anyway a jungle vehicle --they want to look tough-- that was   
   > >unsafe to itself and others landed on American roads, which were   
   > >pretty unsafe anyway, and without a truck license of any kind (as   
   > >common sense would dictate) unleashed the Law of the Jungle among   
   > >drivers and appealed to the "animal within."   
   >   
   > Well, the jungle beats the alternative.   
   >   
   > >That's not nice for other drivers and the environment, but I have a   
   > >further classification that would take effect wherever the revolution   
   > >comes to power: THE SUV IS A TOY.   
   >   
   > Many are because they are used as such. Most are used for mundane   
   > things such as driving to the store, taking the kids to school and so   
   > on - because they were the only alternative to the station wagon which   
   > was effectively driven out of existence in america (sic) by CAFE.   
      
      
      
   Errmmm...there was a far better alternative to the SW - the van.  It   
   wasn't accepted as such because it didn't have the bells and whistles   
   (read 4x) of the SUV.  Why people who never went off-road thought they   
   needed 4x is beyond me.  My guess is that 90% or more of the SUV sales   
   were for the "chest beating" reason.   
      
   Harry K   
      
      
      
   Most SUV are not equipped with 4WD, so that can't be the reason people   
   prefer them over vans. Clearly some are loaded with 4WD, and very few vans   
   have a 4WD option, so that can be the driving factor of some buyers, but not   
   a majority of them.   
      
   My guess is that you are wrong. Lots of drivers don't tolerate a low driving   
   position very well, and they prefer the upright, and elevated, position that   
   they get from a truck. When a truck is fitted with the opulent interior   
   packages that are offered today, as opposed to the spartan packages that   
   were available in the '60s and 70's, and somewhat beyond for some makers,   
   then the overall comfort level easily approaches that of a car, and can   
   surpass the comfort of a car in many aspects. I'd never argue that a truck   
   can surpass the performance of a car, but they can meet or exceed the   
   comfort.   
      
   There are lots of reasons that people will gravitate to an SUV, most of them   
   having nothing at all to do with 4WD.   
      
      
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)