The SUV market has grown top-to-bottom, big-to-small, so I'm not sure it's as simple as "people like big cars, those cars are gone." People like the versatilty, perceived safety, and image of a rugged, active lifestyle whether they have one or not. If not, why not buy a station wagon? It serves the same purpose. But it's too plain, boring; it's what Mom drives. And if you are a Mom, you don't want to look like that's all you do--kiddy transport. Same story for minivans. Sure enough, now we have tall station wagons with the "cross-over" tag gaining in popularity. It turns out the less-hardcore large SUV drivers find out 10mpg and hellacious parking and maneuverability aren't what they had in mind. Then there are those that need to one-up their neighbors with a vehicle that appears even more adventurous and luxurious--more chrome bits, more wood trim, more leather, more size--a "winner take all" look. Perhaps this is the "win times are good" buyers you are speaking of, but I don't see that as the entire market.

As for manufacturers rejoicing over being able to offer the public large vehicles again without CAFE interference? What they're rejoicing is the huge profits made on these vehicles. And as CAFE has caught up with trucks, it's meant more vehicles like the Magnum, PT Cruiser, etc. in the "truck" classification for manufacturers to be in compliance.

The market screams for what is marketed to them the majority of the time. There are informed buyers who know what they want, of course. But this is not the majority. Why do you think all of these great rwd cars went away to begin with? Because everyone was told (marketing) that fwd was the only safe way to go. If you have a product that has a greater profit than all the others (SUV), aren't you going to market the hell out of it? They will use this well until it dries, oil crisis be damned. And while people acknowledge there is an oil problem and gas prices are high, they need an SUV, so what can they do?? Auto industry lobbyists will keep a bug in the ear of the government for as long as they can, not letting them forget increased legislation will only hurt Detroit and the economy. It's no wonder trucks still catch a lot of breaks compared to cars.

Again, it's not about what the customer wants so much as it is about money.

 

So what if you need the utility of a wagon, but you need to pull a 5000 lb trailer?

 

So I guess the functional point of your argument is that you're so much more well informed as to what those morons who are out there buying SUV's SHOULD HAVE that we oughta let you decide for them...

Which then circles right on back to the issue of hypocrisy. Still got the sound deadening material in your car? The A/C?

No. FWD was marketed for these reasons:

1) It's more space efficient. You can get a larger passenger compartment on a given vehicle size and weight by using a FWD architecture. This went hand in hand with the conversion to unibodies, which occurred at nearly the same time.

2) While some will argue here, and be wrong, FWD is the better choice for an architecture in two specific dynamic cases: low traction conditions and dynamic conditions that would result in the average operator causing an unrecoverable oversteer event... commonly known as "spinning out." FWD cars tend to understeer (plow), which is favored by chassis engineers for the average driver since it is more easy to recover from. Having the mass of the drivetrain over the driving wheels speaks for itself in low traction conditions. Locating as much mass as possible over the drive wheels is the reason why tow vehicles like light trucks remain predominantly RWD - if they were FWD, the load would be taking weight off of the driving wheels - a condition that gets much worse in dynamic conditions. While a 60/40 weight distribution is not ideal for high performance cars or light trucks, it IS ideal for low traction conditions and the vast majority of vehicles that are sold as daily transportation implements.

3) FUEL ECONOMY. Due to the considerations laid out in #1, for a given set of functional requirements, FWD is more efficient - it allows the manufacturer to thereby reduce mass and aid fuel economy. Only in vehicles where performance was critical (Corvette and Camaro are very good examples) did the case skew back to the RWD concept. Again, this coincided with the shift to unibodies - also another mass-saving.


Given those facts above, and using your logic, RWD should be eliminated also. No one really needs RWD either and it wastes gas - unless they towing. High performance can be no more solid a justification than the benefits of size, comfort and safety that a SUV provide.

 

Thats what hes saying...There are the hardcore out there who actually do have a use for a full size Excursion type vehicle, but those that bought that kind of vehicle for the image are coming to the realization that its a big, heavy, fuel inefficient vehicle thats hard to drive, and that something smaller can be had with 9/10ths the room, more luxury, and for less money and fuel.

 

And I say that if that is the realization they come to, more power to them. In any other case, let's keep the holier than thou types from dictating vehicle choices to people or allowing the clouded judgement of their own hypocritical blatherings to be used to castigate them for being "socially irresponsible."

 

You are way too defensive. I have not once said that SUVs should be eliminated, or rwd, and my logic does nothing to suggest either. I'll also add that my tone is hardly "holier than thou." My point was that people's (the general masses) needs were met before the SUV boom of about 10 years ago. I don't think it's because their families all outgrew midsize sedans or that they all took up rock climbing. There are some that prefer the qualities you described (that's not new, these vehicles did exist before '95), but everyone did not all of a sudden seek these qualities without some sort of motivation, beit marketing or other. Which is all fine and good. Everyone should be able to drive what they want. But all vehicles should meet standards (safety, fuel, etc.) that do not compromise other motorists.

 

If all the Vehicle dictators got their way The olny models you could buy would be a 2.2L Cobalt, 3.4L Impala, Uplander, and V6 Silverado.

Small car, larger car, minivan and V6 pickup would fit the needs of 98% of the population. Since this is America and not the USSR people should be able to get what they want, not what someone esle things they need.

 

Shhhhh...They might hear you...

 

Marketing divisions regulate what people buy When was the last time you heard a non-enthusiast say "It has an LS1!" or "I gotta have a gen. 3 block!" The public buys what they're told to buy. Individuals will remember those Hemi commercials, feel nostalgic about their Hemi's back in the 60's and flock to those, even though there has been a better similar engine offered by GM for years now.

 

Take it from someone who does advertising every day--for companies from Canon, Princess Cruises, and Memorex to no-names you've never heard of:

Good marketing makes good products explode.
Good marketing makes bad products die--faster.

People aren't as stupid as you think.

(And the reason people buy Hemis, IMO, is mainly because Chrysler put them in short-bed trucks, SUVs, and 4-door cars--cars that people want to buy--rather than limiting them to sporty cars that the vast majority of people don't relate to, and putting a few crippled versions in big heavy trucks).

 

You are right to the "T", but it all still revolves around good marketing, more than it does informed decisions.
GM puts the same block design on trucks and 4-door cars, yet people still don't know about them.

 

That's an awfully broad generalization. Are you sure you want to make it? I can roll out dozens of failed products that had mega billions pumped into marketing.

The Segway?

I am amazed at how some of you guys are so willing to remove free-will as a factor.

 

If this has been covered, I apologize, but I'm not reading 7 pages of MPG nonsene. By the logic of 1/3 less HP equals 1/3 more MPG argument, just use a 2002 Camaro as an example. Let's compare a 200HP V6 Camaro with a 320HP V8 Camaro. Cars weigh roughly the same, same tranny, same just about everything. The V6 is probably a little lighter and it's more than 1/3 less HP (about 37.5% less). However, the MPG of the V6 is 19/30 and the MPG of the V8 is 19/25. So you get no better city MPG and 5 MPG more for dropping to a V6. An undisputed improvement to be sure, but only about 17%. So, using that logic, 1/3 less HP equals about 1/6 more MPG. Again, it's an improvement, but it's not a 1:1 ratio as this article suggests and anyone suggesting otherwise, just doesn't get it.

The reality is, I agree that automotive companies should be doing more with current technology. I would even prefer they knocked off the HP wars and did conenctrate more on getting better MPG. But suggesting that simply lowering HP will accomplish this is just not how it works.

I also agree with whoever said that people should have a different license depending on the capability of their vehicle. I'm sure there will be billions of flames for this, but I think any full-size (maybe even mid-sized) SUV's should require a separate driving test and license. Along with that, any car with over so-much HP should require a separate driving test and license. You can do it by power-weight ratio or just straight-up HP.

This would help in numerous ways. The governments at various levels would get to charge people for another driving test/license/paperwork AND you would be able to keep people out from behind the wheel of vehicles they can't handle. If you can't tell, I'm of the "driving is a privilege, not a right" group. There are just too many idiots on the road to let this continue.

I for one, would gladly take an advanced driving course to be able to drive an '08 Z28. That, and for all the exclusivity freaks (read: SS owners), it would make owning a performance car just that much more exclusive of a club.

 

There are exceptions to the rule.

 

There are exceptions to every rule. Which is why making sweeping generalizations about whole classes of people are generally frowned upon.

I'd hardly say we are genetically wired to buy everything we are shown on TV.

I take almost no buying cues from advertising. I buy what I want, period. What marketing does for me, however, is make me aware that a product exists.

We bought our '99 Blazer not because we were compelled by the mysterious draw of corporate marketing buzz but because A) we knew it existed and B) we drove it and looked at and came to the conclusion it met our needs perfectly.

Part of me would like to have a larger SUV but frankly with no kids (yet) the blazer is the perfect size. Anything we buy that can't fit in the back of it really should be delivered by other means anyway IMO.

I think you should give people more credit for making informed decisions about how to spend their money. Now, I'm with you if we are talking healthcare, because we're all told we need X drug or Y proceedure, but it is different because it is always somebody else's money (Employer's or Insurance Co.'s)