Hummers

[ChairmanAgnostic]

No, not blue dress types. That ugly, useless, POS gas-guzzling, monster from your local foolish American Car Manufacturer.

I just don't get it. GM & Ford always seem to be off somehow. When the Japanese started building high quality cars, US cars were tossed off the assembly line like future trash. They built big. VERY BIG. THEN, EVEN BIGGER. with HUGE ENGINES. Surprise, surprise. The first oil crisis hit while Jimmy Carter was president. Who made smaller, high-quality, useful cars? Japan and Europe.
US makers got creamed.

GM responded with the pathetic X-car platform, Ford came out with rusting hulks, and eventually the Saturn came out. Jump in time to the mid 90s. Every year from Clinton's second term, the engine size grew, power usage grew, vehicle weight grew, mileage per gallon stayed the same or fell. By the time of Bush, it would be hard to recall that fleet averages once existed. Worst yet, the car builders made the mistake of believing Boy George and his evil sidekick Dick. Instead of cheap energy, gas prices began to rise. Still, the US industry pressed on. Forget the electric car. (cancelled and DESTROYED, including all engineering and blueprints) Forget hybrids. Bigger, faster, heavier, and bigger. Did I mention bigger? The height of this insanity has to be represented by the Hummer. It matters not whether it is H-1, H-2 or H-3. They all suck. Gas, that is. Large, unwieldy, uncomfortable, useless, and not really good off the road. (there was a contest, still on youtube, in which a hummer had to be towed out up a hill, while euro SUVs and ATVs were zipping around it - hillaryious!)

Hummers are an example of everything wrong with today's car industry. Except they went through this before. Can't they learn? In Europe and Japan, a new car model takes between 11-16 months of design and development until the first car is out on the street. Here, it takes between 18-20 months. Even so, we knew that IraqNam was going badly. We knew that energy prices were rising and had risen through out the era of Bush. We knew that there was no light at the end of the tunnel. Two years ago. And what did the US auto industry do? Not much. Just concentrated on more trucks, pick ups, and SUVs. Larger, heavier, fatter, and more wasteful.

So what will happen? Will the US tax payer have to bail out the auto industry AGAIN? Will being big and stupid be saved by the feds? Just like the mortgage industry? How many times do we have to see the same mistakes made over again, before they start doing things in a smart fashion? Peak oil has been a topic for 8 yrs. It is not like they've had no warning. Global warming has been a topic for 10 years, and within the last five, every reputable scientist agrees that it exists. Transportation experts have repeatedly stated that heavier cars and trucks damage the roads faster, raising our costs of maintenance and construction. yet, the weight of US vehicles has risen every year for the last 8 yrs.

When we put our minds to it, we can build really cool stuff. Yet, time after time, the US auto industry continues to fuck up. WHY?

[Cooley Hurd]

1. I love hummers!

Um... what's this about SUV's?:D

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

2. Ford built a nice-sized van in the 1960s that got 28 mpg

It was called the Ford Transit. When I spent a year in France in 1968 and playing rock and roll, my band had one to transport all our equipment. The van had a small four-cylinder engine and manual transmission. It didn't have very much power and didn't accelerate like a dragster, but it hauled a lot of stuff and could get you to and from any place you wanted to go.

Unfortunately, they were only built in Ford's European plants and weren't brought to the United States.

[mr_hat]

48. Did the same '73-'75. We called our Transit the Flying Joint.

Really thought we were big-time, even though you could see the British Petroleum colors under the quick spray job...

[yellerpup]

3. No one where I live NEEDS a truck

The roads are all paved, you'd have to drive 50 miles to find a farm, and yet I see moms picking up their kindergartners in Hummers, Jeeps, you-name-it HUGE trucks that they dont know how to drive. (As a former farm gal, I consider myself an expert on who knows how to drive a truck) There was (is?) a law that allows a big truck buyer a huge tax rebate (almost enough to cover the cost of a Hummer) so that several people I know who have no earthly use for a truck I know took advantage of when they still had jobs... It makes no sense. I'm addled by it all.

[ThomWV]

39. Here everyone needs a truck, a 4x4 at that, but no one needs a Hummer

It ain't a truck, you can't haul anything but groceries with one.

[Warpy]

4. They've been making perfectly good small cars all the while

and I mean the cars are sturdy, comfortable, and get decent gas mileage, unlike the trashmobiles in the 70s.

However, the profit margin was so much higher on the gas guzzling penis extenders that you'd never know these cars are being made from the advertising on TV and in print media. I'm sure Joe Sixpack had no idea that the smaller domestic cars were still being made, not unless he had a reason to go looking for them.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

5. I recently rented in Germany and Scotland

the Ford in Germany got 38 on the highway, (at autobahn speeds, no less) and 35 in the city (I translated from kilometers and litres) In scotland, with another model of Ford, similar numbers.

Both cars were built incredibly solidly, handled well, and were a dream to drive. Yet, they don't sell those models here. I don't get it.

[mac2]

8. They are out to destroy us for their own profit.

Who is they? The old European royal elites. They want back in for Empire.

[Beausoleil]

6. Just a point of clarification

The first oil crisis occurred when Nixon was president in 1973.

I voted other - all of the above.

[mac2]

10. And then Carter de-regulated and we had a oil crisis.

One could only buy 5 gallons at a time when oil tankers were sitting off shore waiting to unload. It was for profit. We did start to conserve and then forgot about it until now.

Carter said if we built that Alaskan pipeline (our tax payer dollars) we would be free of foreign oil for years. Then they gave it to BP and the rest is history.

[baldguy]

28. Wrong and wrong

The Alaskan pipeline began construction in 1973 authorized by Nixon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaskan_pipeline

The 1979 oil crisis began because of the Iranian revolution and continued into 1980 because of the Iraqi invasion. It had nothing to do with deregulation under Carter. That came later under Reagan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_energy_crisis

[mac2]

44. Yes...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Alaska_Pipeline_System Yes...Nixon.

http://www.super70s.com/Super70s/Timeline/1977/ Guess this confused me. Carter opened the pipeline and created the Department of Engery. "Carter won his route for a soon to be constructed oil pipeline in Alaska. ".

According to this article there was de-regulation under Carter. It wasn't the result he had hoped for. Presidents after him gave even more funding and power to oil corporations.

"Energy Policy Success

Carter’s main achievement involved energy policy, though he would receive little credit for it during his term. Despite the lip service paid by American presidents to reducing energy dependence, U.S. oil imports had shot up 65 percent annually since 1973. In 1976 the nation was consuming one-quarter of all Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) production. The U.S. remained wasteful in energy use, with consumption per capita 2.3 times the average for nations in the European Economic Community and 2.6 times Japan's. Carter set out to reduce this dependence.

The president got Congress to pass the Emergency Natural Gas Act, which would authorize the national government to allocate interstate natural gas. He created a Department of Energy to regulate existing energy suppliers and fund research on new sources of energy, particularly sustainable (wind and solar power) and ecologically sound sources. His Energy Security Act created the U.S. Synthetic Fuels Corporation, which would provide $20 billion in joint ventures with private industry. Carter signed his first energy package into law on November 9, 1978. The deregulation of oil and natural gas prices that resulted would lead to a vast increase in the supply of energy in the 1980s, and consequently a lowering of prices.

During Carter’s term, however, the actions of the OPEC oil cartel (foreign oil producers) resulted in an increase in oil prices, from $13 a barrel to over $34. With America so dependent on oil, this huge price increase resulted in a run-up in inflation. Carter asked Congress to accelerate stockpiling 500 million barrels of crude oil in a national security reserve, setting target date by end of 1980 instead of 1982 (the deadline set by the Ford administration). The administration also developed new conservation measures that would sharply reduce industry’s use of fuels, as well as automobile mileage standards. Strip mining would now be regulated by the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, a victory for environmentalists.

Carter had other successes in energy policy, particularly in nuclear energy policy, in which he was an expert. He got Congress to abolish the powerful Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, a step that would make it easier to block breeder reactors and move toward light-water reactors of the kind favored by the administration. Carter won his route for a soon to be constructed oil pipeline in Alaska. He killed funding for the Clinch River Breeder Reactor, because the plutonium reactor technology would increase the risk of nuclear proliferation if adopted elsewhere in the world. Instead, Congress authorized and funded a shutdown of the reactor.

By April 1980, he had gotten much of his second energy package through, including a Crude Oil Windfall Profits Tax (with revenues designated for the general Treasury but not for specific energy projects), which would expire in 1993 or before, if the full amount of $227 billion had been collected. But there were two major defeats: Congress overrode a presidential veto of a bill that Congress had passed repealing a $4.62 per barrel oil import fee -- the first time in twenty-eight years that a Congress had overridden a veto by a president from the majority party. It also defeated the Energy Mobilization Board that Carter had proposed to cut through "red tape" in developing new sources of energy.

While Americans had to endure long gas lines during the summer of 1979 and higher prices at the pump -- effects of the Iranian revolution of that same year -- Carter’s program by and large worked. Consumption of foreign oil did go down, from 48 percent when Carter took office to 40 percent in 1980, with a reduction of 1.8 million barrels a day. When Carter left office there were high inventories of oil and a surplus of natural gas, delivered by a more rational distribution system. There was greater oil exploration than before, leading eventually to an oil glut and a drop in prices—which Carter's Department of Energy had not predicted. Between 1980 and 1985, domestic production would increased by almost 1 million barrels a day, while imports of crude oil and petroleum products declined from 8.2 to 4.5 million barrels a day. His goal of reducing U.S. dependency on foreign sources succeeded, at least temporarily."

During Carter the price of a barrel of oil was $35.00! It is now over $100 headed toward $200. De-regulation of oil corporations has been a disaster.

[mac2]

16. Another oil crisis on the way.

http://www.helium.com/items/603617-again-seems-economic-america

[mac2]

7. We were looking at buying property.

When the young woman next to us drove up in her new Hummer and her kids, I said...nope not here. They'd already cut off the back of the property for their driveway without putting any type of support to keep it from eroding. They stole the end of the property and destroyed it for themselves. Not a good neighbor or citizen.

[medeak]

9. tiny penis thing? n/t

[mac2]

11. Lots of small women drive them.

It's also a bully thing. If we are in a crash I will kill you not me. Give me that big truck and I will rule the road (oh and it's expensive so it is a status thing). We have lots of them out here in the burbs.

I park my car at the food store and can't find it with so many big SUVs and Hummers, trucks, etc. They should have their own parking since it is dangerous to pull out. You can't see around them.

[Deja Q]

15. So it coiuld be a "no penis thing" too?

:D

[medeak]

18. am guilty myself

drive a motor home that gets 7mpg on a good day...but assuage my guilt by towing a Subaru that gets 31mpg...like it evens it all out? ;-)

[mac2]

25. How can you afford to drive any distance at all?

Or do you stay parked?

[medeak]

29. ashamed to say

am one of the few wealthy entrepreneurs on this site. Does it make me a bad person?

[mac2]

36. No there are others. How do you know we are all poor?

We're not.

It's just that even if you have money it should be spent wisely. At least that's what my Scottish grandparents taught me.

[mac2]

70. There is one bright light regarding this energy crisis like the

last one during Carter. We are starting to rethink our energy usage and drive smaller cars. We are thinking of new enviornmental policy.

[Lorien]

26. Yep. if it weren't true they wouldn't hang plastic testicles from the trailer

hitch.

[Breeze54]

12. They make 'hybrid' hummers now....

But i still get PO'd when i see one. There's a guy in my town
that 'sneaks' through town early in the morning in his hummer. :eyes:

Maybe he got tired of scraping the eggs off the windshield! :P

[notesdev]

13. A number of reasons come to mind

#1 - the expectation of eternally cheap gas

#2 - the race to have the largest vehicle on the road, so the driver can see past the increasing size of other vehicles

#3 - because people don't give a shit what happens to anyone else in an accident as long as they themselves turn out OK

#4 - Social status - machismo/tiny penis effect/one-upping the Joneses

#5 - for the few legitimate uses, it's the largest vehicle you can buy that doesn't require a trucker's license

#6 - to intimidate other drivers and generally get one's way on the increasingly law-of-the-jungle roadways

#7 - it was designed to be an armed vehicle and has potential uses in a roadwar scenario

[catzies]

14. They convinced the US driver they were SAFER (not "beautiful" per your poll)

Malcom Gladwell wrote a great new Yorker piece about this a few years back.

http://www.gladwell.com/2004/2004_01_12_a_suv.html

They (auto makers) operated on our fallacious perceptions that having that much metal around you made you and your precious snowflakes safer, never mind that a smaller more agile car can avoid an accident rather than plowing headlong into something and absorbing the blow.

[LeftinOH]

17. Hummers? Bah!....International has been making these for the last few years:

I've never seen one (yet), but they make Hummers look like economy cars-

[JCMach1]

22. I climbed in one at the Dubai auto show... It DWARFS the Hummer

and gets about 1/2 the gas mileage...

[mac2]

27. Doesn't someone in the area of the ME make them for us?

Kuwait maybe? We can't even make our own trucks for war since Bush and Cheney "out source" everything for their own profit. Oh yes... to destroy our economy.

[Stinky The Clown]

35. One of the hosts on an HGTV home improvement show drives one of these in each episode

What's next? Peterbilts? Kenworths?

[Locrian]

19. reason

Same reasons as:

* McMansions,
* McDonalds super-size
* Big gulps
* etc.

Big profits for a little more cost.

[kenny blankenship]

20. I think I can explain it - demographics & segmented marketing

Just because you build small cars doesn't mean people will buy them. There's this thing called competition. If people are already convinced that Japanese makers build a better economy car or small sedan than US makers do, or ever will, the US maker will have a very difficult job in the future of convincing people that their competing smaller models are really worth a look.

You build some smaller cars and, lo, the people stay away. Meanwhile there are people in America who are still buying traditional style American sedans - they actually seek out the larger cars when perhaps the overall market logic and/or climate science says "smaller would be better". These people constitute a segment. They have their reasons. Maybe the larger car for the same money seems like a better value to them because that's just the way they think. Maybe they want a larger car because they have gigantic fat asses from eating a typical American diet of fast food, junkfood snacks, meat 3 meals a day, and lots of starches and refined sugars. Maybe the rising price of gas hasn't ripped them a new asshole yet. Maybe they want their car to say Buick and their home furniture to say Broyhill and the traditional shape of these things appeals to them with a comforting consistent, uhm...aesthetic; and if you change the Buick shape too fast on them you risk losing their dollars forever. Whatever their reasons they keep buying traditional proportioned American cars for years after the oil shocks of the 1970s instead of smaller more efficient types which American manufacturers don't do so well at. They are reliable customers, and even though they are "downscale" as a market, and aging as well, American manufacturers don't dare abandon them or flout their tastes. These manufacturers would like to add more affluent buyers to their customer base (for their higher profit margins) but that's difficult to do since more well to do people are now buying European sedans precisely to DISTINGUISH THEMSELVES AS NOT the downscale clientele buying Fords, Chryslers, Buicks, Chevrolet, Pontiac. Smart middle class folk with smaller budgets opt for smaller Japanese made sedans for their economy and reputation for reliability. You would want to attract them, but there is a terrible self reinforcing effect of being associated with people with no financial sense or self-control, small prospects and giant asses.

Now into this depressing picture enters the American SUV. It's large heavy and sucks gas, but for another constellation of marketing reasons THE FUCKERS SELL !!!! They have broad based appeal. They can be useful to move stuff around with; and owning one points out to the world that you are someone who HAS a lot of stuff, and maybe a nice house in the country to keep it in. It also fits overweight people without generating embarrassment. Not only do downscale schlubs want them but upscale segments buy them too. People in the country buy them. People in the suburbs of metropolises buy them. Inner city people buy them. The Model Fucking T one-size-fits-all car is back! For years SUVs (and pickups) have been the only profit making car segment to speak of for US manufacturers. This is lifeblood for them. As long as SUVs are generating seasons of profit in the middle of decades of operating losses, it's IMPOSSIBLE --capitalistically speaking--for them to turn their back on the SUV and say "Hey, you know the years of easy oil and gas prices are NEVER coming back to stay; supplies of petroleum are finite. We really need to be putting our efforts into subcompacts and super lightweight 4dr sedans." Companies that have been beaten to death's doorstep do not make longterm plans, esp. those that entail high losses in R&D and slow sales. They focus ferociously on anything that makes a profit NOW.

And so they begin to compete on who makes the biggest SUV. And whose SUV has more horsepower, torque and so forth.

Should the government have been restraining this reckless wasteful environmentally damaging trend towards cars and SUVs with bigger engines heavier curb weights, shittier mileage? Well sure, but, "that's Socialism".

[Jed Dilligan]

54. Good post nt

[KneelBeforeZod]

21. Honestly ...

It is because there remains enough demand for large SUV's to justify their production. Let freedom ring. If demand dried up, they'd stop producing them. Car companies are in the business of making money, so they do it because its profitable ... nature of the beast.

You called the cars "ugly" and "useless" ... ugly is a matter of taste, but I can attest to them not being entirely useless. It will not be a popular opinion on this forum, I am aware ... I don't own a Hummer, but I will confess to owning a very large SUV (Ford Expedition). I am in Houston, Texas with a family of 5 (and groups that can rise to 7 or 8 depending on nearby extended family who may be riding with us) -- including two small children with clunky car seats. To ride comfortably with the entire family in the car requires a very large car, especially on long trips. I understand the gas-guzzling nature of the SUV (believe me, $100+ fill-ups are commonplace), but it consumes less gas than would the two small cars it would take to replace its comfort on family trips (and emits less noxious gas than would the two small cars necessary to transport that many people).

Additionally, I prefer the safety that I believe larger cars can provide. I've seen large Suburbans and Durangos owned by other family members survive fairly horrendus accidents with no injuries (including an accident with a Dump Truck hitting a driver door at 50 mph, an accident that my father walked away from without injury) -- accidents that a smaller car would not have been able to tolerate, and where family members would've likely been injured or killed.

It is simply the most efficient viable way of comfortably transporting a relatively large group of people in Houston, Texas. I would not object to raising their gas mileage, or even having hybrid varieties of large SUVs ... but I will not be switching to a smaller car anytime soon. So, I admit that I directly contribute to the continued availability of large SUV's -- and I make no apologies for it. To each his own ... if you prefer smaller cars, more power to you.

KBZ

[Tesha]

30. A minivan will move the equivalent number of people with better economy. (NT)

[KneelBeforeZod]

31. Had a minivan once ...

It was a repair nightmare (which easily ate up any savings from fuel economy) -- and wasn't as comfortable as I'd have liked. Switched to SUVs, and never had the same problems.

KBZ

[Tesha]

32. Everyone has an excuse. (NT)

[CRF450]

33. Minivans dont get but a few mpg more than an SUV.

I myself am guilty of having a gas guzzler, yet I need it for my summer pool cleaning job to haul around the cleaning equipment, and other utility necessities I do on my time off work. Come out to the Outerbanks NC, you'll see mostly SUV's and trucks on the road, only difference is that most of the time, they're actually being used for what there made for, hauling many people, cargo/luggage, construction equipment, the list goes on...

[ChairmanAgnostic]

38. my two dogs total 250 lbs.

A small vehicle is simply not doable.

[Tesha]

49. Minivans have more interior space than SUVs.

Like I said, everybody has an excuse.

Tesha

[CRF450]

64. true, but they still lack the utility aspect that SUV's have.

Especially when it comes to hauling big loads, minivans are made for hauling people, and not much more. Also, interior space isn't that big of a difference between a new minivan and a fullsize SUV.

[Tesha]

74. Minivans more easily carry large volumes than SUVs.

And their not bad in the "heavy cargos" department, either.
Mine happily carried a thousand pounds of tumbled-concrete
retaining wall blocks on several different occasions.

Tesha

[KneelBeforeZod]

41. Not at all ...

I am not making excuses. In fact, I am not engaging in any behavior that I believe needs excusing. As I noted above, an SUV is simply the best, most efficient choice for my family and me ... and I don't believe the approval of the entire progressive community should be required before I make an automotive purchase. Seems a little authoritarian.

I make no apologies for my decision in family transport -- I was simply offering another perspective which hadn't been offered on this thread. As I said, let freedom ring ... live and let live. Those of you who find small cars that get 40 mpg to be effective for you, or those whose principles drive you to purchase a car other than the one that might be the best fit ... more power to you. I admire your principles, and am glad your situation allows you to act on those. I simply don't find small cars to be at all useful in my particular situation.

Ultimately, true freedom is the ability to allow someone whose decisions or principles may differ from yours to live their lives as they see fit. To do otherwise is to simply adopt the right-wing authoritarian principles that we so decry, and transplant them onto a left-wing ideology.

Z

[Tesha]

50. Well, as I've said elsewhere, I guess gas still isn't expensive enough.

You'll eventually come around.

Tesha

[KneelBeforeZod]

52. There is no gas price ...

There is no gas price at which it will make economic sense to drive 6 or 7 people in two separate cars (including payments, maintenance, etc. for TWO cars), at 40 mpg each (coming to 20 mpg total, as each car will be burning gas separately - thus 40 mi. per 2 gallons) rather than all 7 in one SUV at 20ish mpg (and one payment, maintence cost, etc).

Simple economics ... you burn about the same amount of gas in one 8-seat SUV as you would with two four-seat compact cars -- but with half the overhead. Just doesn't make economic sense ... doesn't make sense at $2.00/ gallon -- doesn't make sense at $4.00/ gallon -- doesn't make sense at $8.00/ gallon.

Regardless of what some progressives would prefer, there are scenarios where a large car is economically justified without regard to gas prices. A large family living in a spread-out city (where automotive travel is a necessity of life) is one of those scenarios.

Z

[Jed Dilligan]

56. You're right--the most important issue is not with the car buyer

or even the car maker; it's our pattern of development. We will not fix our problem until we pull back from the 'burbs and learn to live with a little density again, move production closer to population centers, have wildland fingers cutting up cities to provide wildlife corridors as well as local outdoor recreation, narrow the streets, make them bike-able, expand bus line coverage, build high-speed interurban rail, etc., etc. It's easy to attack one symptom of where we went wrong, hard to redesign the whole country that made these vehicles a necessary evil for so many folks.

[BigDaddy44]

67. You better be careful Zod

You're using logic. There's no room for logic in this discussion. Heads may explode if you don't knock it off.

[Tesha]

75. Ah! Insults! That'll carry the argument, ehh? (NT)

[Tesha]

73. Seven people fit in a minivan. Eight? Well, very few SUVs carry eight anyway.

And even then, two Priuses carrying ten people are probably
*STILL* more economical than a (say) Suburban carrying ten.

Tesha

[KneelBeforeZod]

78. Yes ... eight ...

Two in the front, three in the middle, three in the back ... eight. Really only 7 comfortably, though -- 8 is a pretty tight squeeze, especially on long trips.

>> And even then, two Priuses carrying ten people are probably *STILL* more economical than a (say) Suburban carrying ten.

First of all -- a Prius carrying 5 people is a clown car (like I said, two child carseats -- and diaper bags, strollers, etc.) ... comfort is a consideration here. According to "fueleconomy.gov" a 2007 Toyota Prius gets 48 MPG Hwy, and a 2007 Chevrolet Suburban gets 19 MPG Hwy. If you factor in the fact that it would take two Prius's to carry as many people as one Suburban ... that drops the fuel economy of the Prius to 24 MPG (48 Miles to 2 gallons = 24 MPG). Thats all of a 5 mpg difference for the added inconvenience and expense of two separate car payments, two separate drivers, and two separate maintenance bills.

The overall savings there, in a year where you drive 15000 miles (789.5 gallons Suburban, 600 gallons for 2 Priii) ... at $3.00 a gallon, the difference in fuel costs is $568 in a year. The payments for the second Prius should blow that number out of the water in about a month-and-a-half. Even at $5 a gallon, the difference is still only $947 in a year ... maybe 3 or 4 months payments on the second Prius.

The fact remains, on a MPG-per-person basis (or a MPG-per-sq. ft. basis for those hauling stuff), an SUV isn't as bad a deal as some here would have you believe. For individuals or couples, an SUV may be excessive. But, for large families, an SUV sometimes makes sense. For people who haul equipment, an SUV or Pickup truck sometimes makes sense (I prefer the SUV to the pickup because it can haul either people OR equipment ... a pickup doesn't have seats in the bed). If you would rather drive two Prius's instead of one Suburban, help yourself. Doesn't really make sense for me, though.

I do question the wisdom of someone who believes they are more able to make financial and/or logistical decisions for my family than I am. Perhaps your one-size-fits-all solutions to problems aren't all they're cracked up to be. A small car is not always the best fit.

Z

[krabigirl]

65. What are you, the car police??

[Tesha]

76. No, I just speak for sustainable life on our planet.

I guess it's a shame so few do.

Tesha

[JCMach1]

23. Big, Wasteful, Powerful, Square, Inefficient, Polluting, Built in the Image of a Killing Machine

Sounds like AMERICA!

Do you need more explanation than that?

[Lorien]

24. #1, but I must add that profits are huge for both the manufactuer AND

Big Oil. They're in bed together, and the losers in that deal are the people and every other living organism on the planet.

[unkachuck]

34. you know....

....at some point, we might have to conclude, that American industrialists and American consumers are incompetent assholes....you do realize this?

[DaveJ]

37. Wow -- I didn't vote, but option 3 is clearly it....

Fat people = Fat cars. It's not a Republican conspiracy, just a sign of the times.

I wouldn't worry too much. The auto industry has plans for cars if gasoline runs out.

[KharmaTrain]

40. Last Night's Asshole Award...

I remember those "fun" days of 1973-74 and then in 1978...gas lines, rationing and the price doubling. In those days I was driving a Ford "Large Tin Dog"...400hp engine on leaded gas. Damn that car was fast, but it also cost me what I considered a fortune to keep running. I got my first Nissan (then Datsun) with a stick shift and have always had sticks and small cars since.

My area, Pleasant Valley Sunday, used to be loaded with Hummers, Vans and SUVs...but lately I sure am seeing a lot of smaller cars out there. My brother-in-law called us the other day to say he junked his PT Cruiser and got a Suburu...and he's as "yuppie" as they come.

Last night I was a dude in a Hummer hogging up two lanes of traffic on a local road. Besides the fact that this shitbox was calling attention to itself, this bastard seemed to enjoy all the people honking at him and flipping him off. He musta just filled that lead boat up and was out to piss others off.

[mac2]

45. High gas usage cars should be taxed more for their

stress on the enviornment. People would still use them but give us funds to find other energy sources. It could fund public transportation also.

Turn a negative into a positive.

[Lorien]

69. Instead BushCo gave the biggest tax BREAKS to Hummer buyers

:crazy:

[mac2]

71. Maybe Bush was hoping to confiscate them when he

declared military rule. He wouldn't have to pay for them.

[Lorien]

68. Nothing says "I'm shallow, vain, a lemming and I've got a tiny penis" like

a Hummer. It's too bad that driving one doesn't cause sterility.


It's not just China and India driving up the cost of gas, either, It's those millions of drivers of "vanity vehicles" like the Hummer that are screwing each and every one of us. But they'll always have their excuses;"I have a big family" "I need to haul stuff" "i live on a hill" "well, I probably drive less than you do" "don't tell ME what to drive! This ain't a nanny state! It's all about MY FREEDOM*" (*screw you and the planet you live on). Funny how we all survived without them pre-1990s, huh?

[mac2]

72. Rolling Rambo?

[Rosemary2205]

42. Car dealerships have started to refuse them as trade ins.

My local Ford Store "officially" takes them, but the trade in price offered is no assinine low that no stooge on the planet is idiotic enough to accept it.

[mac2]

47. Send them to the military bases and overseas to be fixed

and be adjusted to their needs. Can't put them in the junk yards can we?

[bean fidhleir]

43. The same ones own Detroit as own the oil companies

It's like razors or inkjet printers - you make those (and give them away if they're cheap enough) because you make your money on the blades, toner, or oil/gas sales.

[mac2]

46. Detroit car companies are mostly gone to Mexico and

Canada. Detroit has a abandoned housing problem from so many bankruptcies caused by job loss. The community businesses fail too.

It's the corporations (and their elite) who control the country and our economy or lack thereof.

[bunkerbuster1]

51. You asked "Why," said "Other." Here's why.

American industry simply has too much influence over American legislation. They come a-calling and Congress and the Executive branch roll out the red carpet.

Automakers are no different. They've allowed the government to provide them with easy, short term profit-making incentives for people to drive these stupid things (I could write a book about that). It's fine for short-term profit to allow ourselves to go down that path but in the long run, as we've seen, it's been a disaster for all concerned.

Of course the US auto industry could provide us with the same kind of really solid smaller cars we see from Japan, Korea and elsewhere. But there's been too much of an incentive for far too long to do otherwise, the smaller cars have been the poor relations, pumped out to meet weak-ass CAFE standards and not much more. Small car buyers have been treated like shit by American car companies, and it'll take a lot of work to get them back.

Anyway, great topic, and I really enjoyed your take on things. But I think the missing poll choice, and the answer to your question, is "Carmakers write the rules."

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

53. When I used to visit China about 10 years ago

each time I would see micro-vans everywhere. They were being used as taxis and to haul everything. I believe they were made in China based upon the Daihatsu Hijet, one of several types of micro-vans made in Japan. They are street legal and imported in almost every country and region in the world, Canada, England, Asian countries, except the United States where they are not legal to operate or import. They get over 50 mpg and have a very small 660cc engine and manual transmission. In China, they would cram in 7 or 8 people in one of these yellow taxis. They are teeny-tiny, much smaller than a VW bus and I think they're really cute. They look something like this, except there were models in China will full windows all around:

[Jed Dilligan]

55. I've seen those around my neighborhood,

but I live in a pretty Green city. I imagine they aren't common in a lot of American cities.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

57. According to this website, they are illegal for street use in the U.S.

This is the website of the main importer to the U.S. for these micro-trucks and micro-vans made in Japan. They can't be licensed or registered in any U.S. State. They are called "Kei Class" (in Japanese, meaning "lightweight") vehicles. In the U.S., they are strictly for use on golf courses, for hunting (they have four-wheel drive), and on farms or in junk yards. Even the ones that are imported to the U.S. for those off-road purposes have to have a speed governor on them so they can't surpass a certain speed. In China, they were being used on the regular roadways, especially for urban transportation.

http://www.best-used-tractors.com/mini_truck.html

[Jed Dilligan]

58. There must be something similar that is legal here, then.

In the neighboring town where I used to live the city used a fleet of them.

Is there a federal vehicle code?

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

59. Yes, it's the federal laws that make them illegal

I've looked at some online forums of guys who want to import these micro-trucks and micro-vans from Japan. Apparently, it's the federal law that trumps state laws that prevents them from becoming street legal and the states have to follow that. They are street legal in Canada, and some guys get them licensed and insured up there and drive them down here, but I understand that the local police in the U.S. ticket them if they are caught driving on public roads. Maybe what you saw is not quite as small as these micro-vans. They are really, really small. If you find out what make of van you've seen in your town, I'd be interested in knowing about it. Apparently, one of these micro-vans in Japan sells for about $5,000 to $6,000 brand new. I think one would be useful for just getting around town without going onto freeways at high speed and they get astounding gas mileage. However, I'd prefer one made in China or somewhere else licensed by the Japanese manufacturers because the Chinese ones have left hand drive, while those made in Japan have the steering wheel on the other side, as Japan's roadways are like England, with the driver on the other side.

[Jed Dilligan]

60. Drop me a PM so I'll remember who you are

(It will be at the top of my inbox for a long time; no one PM's me.)

I'll message you back when I see one again.

I could've sworn the last one I saw had a Honda "H" on its radiator, but it didn't look exactly like the Actys pictured on the web. (For one thing, it had an exposed radiator.)

on edit: This looks like what I saw, but it's being advertised as offroad and the advertised model number doesn't come up on a Google search.

http://www.cape-ape.com/inventory.php?id=76

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

61. Thanks a lot

[Jed Dilligan]

62. I just edited--check out the link.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

63. Yeah, that looks like a Japanese Kei Class vehicle

I'm more interested in the micro-van version of the same type of vehicle. But the ad says "off road". Maybe I misinterpreted what you were posting, thinking that you were saying they were being legally driven around town and not off the road (for example, on golf courses or in factory complexes).

[Jed Dilligan]

66. This one was driving through midtown on city streets

But a lot of illegal stuff goes on, so who knows? Anyway, I'll look into it--my old hometown which I visit every couple of weeks has a fleet of similar sized vehicles, which I believe are electric.

[erpowers]

77. Other Ego

I answered other to the poll because I think some of the issue is ego. People need to remember why America got the Hummer. Arnold Schwarzenegger was very important in the Hummer, which is a civilian version of the military Humvee. The story goes Arnold say a Humvee and decided he wanted one or more of his own. He was somehow able to convince GM, the company that makes the Humvee, to build a civilian type, which turned out to be the Hummer; I believe that was the H1. Arnold supposedly owns at least six Hummers. Somehow a number of financially stable people began to buy the Hummer. Therefore it became at least moderately profitable for GM. So it seems that ego was the main reason GM decided to build the Hummer. I do not hate Hummers, but I think that is the reason they were first made.

[Hangingon]

79. I need to pay more attention.

Are these anti-Hummer threads on a timed schedule? Are they just count builders? The market seems to be killing these things. They no longer make sense, but they last for a long time so we will be seeing them for years to come. I'll bet there will be similar threads on the hybrids when we discover the problems with battery replacement andd disposal.