After all of our debating the pertinence of the new Tahoe Persuit Package being offered by GM, this seemed like a dagger to the throat.

New bill would eliminate SUVs from California's state-owned fleet

As we all know, Cali seems to set the trends as to what happens in the car market. This could be bad not only for GM, but for all the SUV makers... Jeep, Dodge, and Ford too.

This should have them in a tailspin for sure!

 

Oh....gimmee a frick'n break! No state workers ever have to drive on terrain that would not handle a car? I hope they've made some exceptions. One question that comes to mind...What about state parks? And I'm sure the police would like to have a few around in some parts of the state....

 

Yes, they did put in some exemptions, but if you read through it, they are still mandating a substantial reduction if this is passed. They have shown a potential savings of $14.3 million in its first five years if the state reduced its annual SUV purchases by 75 percent, and this is a main driver for the bill. Reduced maintenance and operating costs were cited too.

Julia Louise-Dreyfus (Elaine from Seinfeld) is one of the supporters of this bill - go figure.

 

DOH! Should've read the whole article first...

On the other side of the coin, maybe it will balance out that $100,000 dollar tax exemption for SUV's pruchased for small businesses.

 

Makes sense to me - we don't have any SUVs here in our company fleet due to the fuel-economy issues (if you gotta haul a lot of people or cargo, a minivan does a better job with greater economy). Make an exemption for the land-management and wildlife guys, sure, maybe give the police the ability to purchase limited numbers of off-road-capable vehicles, but keep the suit-and-tie crowd in economy cars where they belong.

 

Gee, I called certain people at GM pushing SUVs as pursuit vehicles idiots and I got chastized.

Now, California is rightly deep sixing SUVs from the state fleet where it isn't necessary, and where CARS will do as good or better than SUVs.

Cash strapped states & municipalities are going to buy comparatively limited mobility $28,000 Tahoes at 10 mpg city vs the $24,000 17 city mpg more stable in emergency manuver Crown Victoria's. Or even an $18,000 21 mpg FWD Impala.

Maybe there were no "idiots" in thje creation of this endevor to promote SUVs as competitors to Crown Victorias. Let's instead just say someone was "Logically disabled.

 

THat is most the most retarded bills ever.

I guess CA is all flat and there is never any muddy, sandy are slipery areas.

a 4x4 Van is just as bad on gas.

I guess instead of a Tahoe they will just have to buy a Supercrew pickup and put a cap on it.

 

GM isn't trying to steal 100% of the Cop car market from Ford with the Tahoe, just the areas were the Tahoe excels compared to a Crown Vic.

I'd like to see a Crown Vic handle 18"s of snow or drive down a muddy rural road.

 

I'd like to see a Tahoe do the same. You guys seem to be under the impression that the police-package Tahoes are lifted 4x4s or something, when in reality they're 2WDs that appear to sit lower and are on rather short all-season tires.

 

They make both 2WD and 4X4 Police Tahoes

 

I read an article about this (I was going to post it, but my computer crashed and I lost it).

Anyway, it seems that in order to not be seen as hippocrites, members of the CA legislature have to get rid of their own SUV's first - more than half of them own one.

And don't even get me started on celebrities... There's just something about someone with a 7,000 sq ft. house, 3 swimming pools and 8 cars telling me that I should be conserving resources...

 

I betcha cops would love to drive a version of the Tahoe SS that Jon Moss was driving on the Power Tour

 

According to the article,

That doesn't seem to eliminate any of the potential purchases for the Persuit Tahoe. Just takes them away from different state workers who probably don't need them like civil engineers, surveyors, bean counters, etc.
The article does say that the purchases would be allowed, but just for emergency, LE, and security use. Right where the Police Tahoe fits in the market.

 

Yeah, I'm with you WERM. That's why I pointed out that Julia was behind this bill. I guess some people like the fact, and maybe they think they are helping the bill by bringing attention to it with their celebrity status. For me, it just discredits any respect I might have had for the celeb because I think most of them are out of touch with reality anyways, much less to come preach it on me.

So why is it that when some goofy bill comes out in Cali, there's always a celebrity ready to tell the rest of the world where we are screwing up? And especially when it comes to wastefulness and squndering of natural resources...
Everyone knows how frugal most celebs are in real life, huh?

 

I respectfully disagree with your take on "who needs them" and who doesn't. I think highway patrolmen are the ones who DON'T need a 130 mph SUV.

I take it you have never done any surveying. When I worked for the NC-DOT, all we had were Suburbans. We called them "Carry-Alls", and they were numbered. We carried 3 sets of 6' tripod legs, two transits, three backsight prisms, 2 rods, an 18' telescopic elevation rod, 4 - 4'-square signs with stands, 3 bush-axes, a shovel, a pick, a hoe, and axe, a chainsaw, a box of 24" stakes, a box of .5"x24" rebar irons, PK-nails, 3 to 5 boxes of colored flagging, a Schonstadt (metal detector), plumb-bobs, 50' tape, 100' tape, 3-6 paint cans, everyones toolbelts, lunchboxes, and reams of 24" x 36" prints. And there were at least 3, and sometimes 5, people on each survey crew. We had everything we needed to do surveying in the heart of the city or in the untamed wilderness. The Suburban was the best thing ever - even better than a 4-door truck IMO. And boy did we ever use the 4x4 on those things! In a field full of corn or tall weeds, we'd use the truck to "cut-line" instead of the bush-axes - less work, less time! Our counterparts that did bridge inspections also used Carry-alls to carry their inspection equipment, carrying everything from ultrasonic equipment to a 10' jon boat strapped on top!

My point is that Civils and surveying crews are EXACTLY the ones that could best use the space and carrying capacity of a Tahoe/Suburban. I'd have no problems with a state or Fed agency using them in these capacities. It's the city cops or Highway Patrol using them to patrol downtown LA where I have the beef.

I totally agree that there should be a Tahoe-type vehicle available for engineering work, park rangers, remote areas, outland sheriffs, and border patrol type service, but even these Tahoes don't need to run +130 mph to do their job either. For daily patrolling of the paved highway and the occasional high-speed persuit (which often shouldn't even happen ANYWAY, ref to choppers and modern highway cams), I advocate the Impys or Vics.

Sorry, but a 4600 lb missile doing 130 with a bumper that is at my neck level while I'm in my Mustang DOESN'T appeal to me. And your Camaros' seating position and raked front ends would be even WORSE!!!
Can we picture a high speed head-on between a Camaro and a Tahoe here...

Back to the bill itself... I'm not advocating what the bill stands for at all, but if done right it could make some sense. If they fill a buying quota getting units for specific state and government needs like engineering, border patrol, park rangers, etc., I still see this bill as a major stymie to the Persuit-packaged Tahoe because the regular old version would do just fine for the above mentioned duties IMO. So GM could have saved whatever development costs were associated with this new persuit model, and put those $$$ into a new Camaro program or something.
When is enough SUV going to be enough?