The same is true of:
azzardous driver
or
$$hole
Posted on 05/09/2005 6:52:14 AM PDT by MississippiMasterpiece
It's a Saturday morning on San Leandro's Marina Boulevard auto row, and the big SUVs have been sitting on the lots, waiting for someone to come in and start that dealer dollar dance that ends up with the customer slightly bewildered but paying a lot less for that vehicle than he thought he was going to.
Once in a while, there are takers, although the dealer has to discount the SUV heavily just to get it moving.
Salvador Sotello, for example, recently paid F.H. Dailey Chevrolet in San Leandro $41,000 for a new Chevy Tahoe LT (yes, with leather) SUV that had a sticker price of $58,000. The sale was an anomaly in what is otherwise a pretty dismal selling season. "It's been pretty quiet," saleswoman Crystal Gonzalez said the other day. "Been pretty slow."
At Broadway Ford in Oakland, the grilles of the Mustangs, SUVs and the lone Thunderbird smile at the passing traffic, but the showroom is empty, it appears, of customers; several salesmen are in sight. Up at Albany Ford-Subaru, salesman Myers Howard, sitting a few feet away from a big Ford pickup truck, says things on the Ford side of the showroom "are slow." That might be the understatement of the day.
Just this past week, General Motors Corp. and Ford Motor Co. underwent the humiliation of seeing their credit ratings reduced by Standard & Poor's Ratings Services to the status of junk. The reasons are becoming clear -- the two big companies can't sell much of what they produce.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
I have a 1977 Jeep CJ5 with a V8, a 1995 Jeep Cherokee and a 2003 Chevy Silverado pickup. I hunt, fish and spend a lot of time off-road. By 2007, Detroit should be coming out with new generation diesels. I hope to find a mid-sized diesel SUV to replace all the above. Hopefully something with a little pep and 22 + mpg.
Interesting post!
The same is true of:
azzardous driver
or
$$hole
"So I have a family of 6."
Duh. Obviously you have a need for a bigger vehicle. Both sides of this debate would agree, if you need a bigger vehicle, buy it, use it.
You imply meaning that is not there in my comments. You use hyperbole. And then resort to personal attacks.
Your reaction is typical of someone who is very insecure, and perhaps a little short on power between the ears.
Actually you can make a Sherman Tank street legal so the answer is yes.
Oh yes. The libs wanted to do this in the '70s. Still see an occaisional peep on this now and then.
sportutegrl, you summed it up nicely. I would suggest that it's not so much love of SUVs that's at issue, but rather choice. If I elect to drive an SUV for whatever reason, I ought to be able to drive one. I'm just amazed that so many posters here on FR still don't get it--and yet, they buy into the MSM arguments that SUVs waste more gas, they have more accidents, SUV drivers tend to be worse than other (more responsible) drivers, etc.
Been reading a lot of the comments here. One thing overlooked is that many people can only afford ONE vehicle. So, for example, if you have to haul a trailer or boat occassionally, or pick up some plywood or drywall at Home Depot, or take the entire family and all their stuff on a trip, at some point it makes sense to buy a larger vehicle.
Sure, if those things happen very infrequently, then you can get by with a smaller vehicle and rent something for the occassional need. However, renting is much more expensive than owning, and its often inconvenient.
Everyone is different, but there is some level of need where it makes financial sense to buy the larger vehicle and bite the mileage bullet.
For example, I'm remodelling my house. I live in NE Ohio, so 4wd/AWD is a big advantage for about 1/3 of the year. Most of the time, I could live with a 2wd midsize or even compact car. However, at least once a week, I need my truck bed, and for 1/3 of the year, I need 4wd or AWD. I bought a used Sierra extended cab 4wd pickup. It meets all my needs for all of the year.
The best solution would be to own the truck and an econobox and drive whichever makes more sense, but for the same price as my newer truck, I'd have to buy two older vehicles and be constantly maintaining them.
As someone mentioned, if full-size station wagons (capable of carrying a 4x8 sheet of drywall or plywood, like the old ones were) were still availble, I'd have one of those. However, they were driven out of the market by CAFE standards, so now I have to buy a truck to accomplish the same thing - law of unintended consequences.
Been reading a lot of the comments here. One thing overlooked is that many people can only afford ONE vehicle. So, for example, if you have to haul a trailer or boat occassionally, or pick up some plywood or drywall at Home Depot, or take the entire family and all their stuff on a trip, at some point it makes sense to buy a larger vehicle.
Sure, if those things happen very infrequently, then you can get by with a smaller vehicle and rent something for the occassional need. However, renting is much more expensive than owning, and its often inconvenient.
Everyone is different, but there is some level of need where it makes financial sense to buy the larger vehicle and bite the mileage bullet.
For example, I'm remodelling my house. I live in NE Ohio, so 4wd/AWD is a big advantage for about 1/3 of the year. Most of the time, I could live with a 2wd midsize or even compact car. However, at least once a week, I need my truck bed, and for 1/3 of the year, I need 4wd or AWD. I bought a used Sierra extended cab 4wd pickup. It meets all my needs for all of the year.
The best solution would be to own the truck and an econobox and drive whichever makes more sense, but for the same price as my newer truck, I'd have to buy two older vehicles and be constantly maintaining them.
As someone mentioned, if full-size station wagons (capable of carrying a 4x8 sheet of drywall or plywood, like the old ones were) were still availble, I'd have one of those. However, they were driven out of the market by CAFE standards, so now I have to buy a truck to accomplish the same thing - law of unintended consequences.
I'm with y'all.
Sorry for the double post - don't know how it happened.
"All you suv hating guys out there just don't get it. People who own an SUV get it. It's just pure suv love. Can't I have what I want?"
Yep. And you have it. I don't hate SUVs. My wife owns a minivan and wants an SUV when she's done with it. It's not envy on my part. It's just trying to be logical. If you don't agree with my reasoning, fine. But can't I reason things the way I want? :)
"posters that assume all of us SUV drivers are short, poor drivers, lazy, cell phone talkers."
Not all, just most. And that's not an assumption, that's an observation. I see it every day.
If you're foolish enough to drive a tiny car and you get in a crash with a semi-tractor-trailer, you will be in far worse condition than if you were in a body-on-frame vehicle like an SUV or an old-fashioned car.
People who use their SUVs for neither sport nor utility are posers.
Junior, if you can't see around those vehicles, you're following too closely. Listen to your argument, "if you can't see...if you're not driving a Jimmy...if you don't have too much tint..." You should really come to grips with your hate of SUVs.
"Actually you can make a Sherman Tank street legal so the answer is yes"
Really? I thought the metal treads would tear the roads up too much. If this is true, that will be the next big thing, now that Hummers are becomming commonplace. :)
Blame the federal government.
They forced the end of the full-size car with CAFE.
As a result, people who want full-size cars have to buy SUVs.
What, we're not allowed to hate certain vehicles and their imbecile drivers because this is a conservative site? Where's that in the bylaws?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.