That's a news I read in an Italian site.

http://www.omniauto.it/a450.html

I won't even bother to tranlsate it beacause it's the usual transcript of what GM gives to the press so it's not that meaningful. The poin is that it says that

39% of US Saab owners has a SUV and
30% of buyers that leave Saab for another brand, they do it to buy a 4 door SUV.


After knowing this, I can understand how the idea of having an SUV in the product line seems so straightforward in GM's mind.

That means that

1)At least 39% of Saab buyers won't be horrified for Saab having a SUV in the line (because they already have one in the driveway) and

2)It will be possible to sell another Saab to that 30% that is forced not to buy one because they want an SUV and Saab don't have it.



Comments welcome :cheesy:

That's a news I read in an Italian site.

http://www.omniauto.it/a450.html

I won't even bother to tranlsate it beacause it's the usual transcript of what GM gives to the press so it's not that meaningful. The poin is that it says that

39% of US Saab owners has a SUV and
30% of buyers that leave Saab for another brand, they do it to buy a 4 door SUV.


After knowing this, I can understand how the idea of having an SUV in the product line seems so straightforward in GM's mind.

That means that

1)At least 39% of Saab buyers won't be horrified for Saab having a SUV in the line (because they already have one in the driveway) and

2)It will be possible to sell another Saab to that 30% that is forced not to buy one because they want an SUV and Saab don't have it.


Comments welcome :cheesy:


I think the important question GM didn't answer (or didn't tell the public) is what the other 70% who left SAAB went to buy. I'll bet it wasn't Saturns and Camrys.

since the 9-7x is not touted to be <$40k, i don't see it mollifying a majority of the "30%," who were prolly driving <$40k saabs to begin with. they'll be looking for "explorers," "pathfinders," and stuff. in other words, if saab wants to capture suv "escapees," it'll have to price the 9-7x some-
where in the (unlikely) 30's.

therefore, gm should renounce the "30% rationale" and just tell people the _real_ reason for 9-7x: saab will have an suv because everyone else has an suv. period! (no "percentage spin" needed.)

i think the 9-7x is going to be over 40

i think the 9-7x is going to be over 40

And that's just the death toll after a freak accident in which a soccer mom crashes through the grocery store wall... :wink:

My wife loves her 9-5 sedan, but with a child and needing more practicality such as more room and 4 wheel drive, we're seriously considering the 9-7x amongst other SUVs when the lease is up on the 9-5 in '06.

She refuses to drive a minivan or a wagon/estate. I would too. They're ugly IMO and have a definite "stigma" attached to them.

We're a 2 SAAB family. If SAAB wants to keep us that way, they need an SUV.

My wife loves her 9-5 sedan, but with a child and needing more practicality such as more room and 4 wheel drive, we're seriously considering the 9-7x amongst other SUVs when the lease is up on the 9-5 in '06.

She refuses to drive a minivan or a wagon/estate. I would too. They're ugly IMO and have a definite "stigma" attached to them.

We're a 2 SAAB family. If SAAB wants to keep us that way, they need an SUV.


With all due respect, ViggenPilot, after you rid the 9-5 you'll be down to 1 SAAB, with a new GM SUV that comes with a SAAB badge affixed :-?

With all due respect SaabKen, I think the 9-7x is more differentiated from the GMC Envoy and Chevy Trailblazer than you think.

The interior is completely different and much more SAABish. Center console ignition, better seats, typical SAAB dash, better materials etc.

Exterior is similar to the aforementioned models indeed, but it's still different. Different front facia and side panels.

It's got SAABish handling too - lower to the ground, different suspension, different wheels/tires etc.

The bottom line is that it's more than just a GMC or Chevy with SAAB badges on it. Those are the facts my friend.

... And to those people I say good riddance.

... And to those people I say good riddance.

I never understood this attitude. Why would you want SAAB to have less customers? I say the more diverse product line and thus more customers the better. That's how you build a brand and brand loyalty.

I swear, I truly think some misguided souls would rather have a SAAB that makes one car and one car only (dorky looking hatchback). Had they stuck with that strategy, they'd be out of business for sure.

She refuses to drive a minivan or a wagon/estate. I would too. They're ugly IMO and have a definite "stigma" attached to them.

We're a 2 SAAB family. If SAAB wants to keep us that way, they need an SUV.


Wait. You have a 9-5 sedan but won't drive a 9-5 wagon because it's ugly? The addition of 2 windows and a hatch changes the car enough that you won't get one? I'm sorry, that's crap. The Stigma of the wagon, I can give a little leeway, but comeone. If you like the 9-5, and need practicality, get a 9-5 wagon. And call it your 9-5 Estate. Now it's not a station wagon anymore.

As for the inside of the 9-7 being totally different - they changed the location of the ignition, and the vents. The materials look a little nicer. I actually like the 9-7X, but let's not pull punches - the inside of the 9-7 is as different from the Trailblazer as the GMC envoy is. Barely.

AWD? Get some snow tires. AWD isn't effective in the snow without approriate tires anyway. No snow? Then why do you need AWD? AWD should be considered a performance option, not a safety option ( this excludes true offroad use, but that's a different issue). AWD is just a nice way for the car companies to convince you to part with another 2 grand for something you don't really need. And the 9-5 is safer in an accident than the SUV, anyway.

I'm cool with Saab having more models...as long as they still make one or two that cater to the faithful...I don't particularly care for SUV's, give me an AWD station wagon (Can anyone say Audi S6 or Volvo V70R?) Better fuel economy, better dry weather capabilities, better poor weather capabilities (most people don't realize that most AWD cars outperform SUV's on the wet and snow, due to lower mass and center of gravity, only when there's really deep snow can an SUV be of benefit)....and definitely has no 'stigma' which I certainly think can be applied to SUV's.

But this 97x is a stop gap...it will fade in our memories, and Saab will have moved on to newer and better things...(how's that for a half-full appraisal :wink: )

I never understood this attitude.

It's quite simple really. SUVs are gas-guzzling road hogs that suck.

I say the more diverse product line and thus more customers the better. That's how you build a brand and brand loyalty.

And yet another TB hack job is a good way to do this as opposed to building a sweet oh say Turbo Outback based crossover?

I swear, I truly think some misguided souls would rather have a SAAB that makes one car and one car only (dorky looking hatchback). Had they stuck with that strategy, they'd be out of business for sure.

Sadly far too many people in this country just don't get how sweet and useful hatchbacks are and share your sentiment. Why is it that Europeans see this and we somehow don't? How about saying that a station wagon with a lift kit and bigger bumpers that gets 15 MPG is dorky? Oh wait, that's an SUV isn't it?

It's a free country my friend, go ahead an run your crappy gas waster of a shoebox on wheels that can't stop and corner well and needs a huge engine just to keep up with traffic. Can't argue bad taste I guess.

I never understood this attitude.

It's quite simple really. SUVs are gas-guzzling road hogs that suck.

I say the more diverse product line and thus more customers the better. That's how you build a brand and brand loyalty.

And yet another TB hack job is a good way to do this as opposed to building a sweet oh say Turbo Outback based crossover?

I swear, I truly think some misguided souls would rather have a SAAB that makes one car and one car only (dorky looking hatchback). Had they stuck with that strategy, they'd be out of business for sure.

Sadly far too many people in this country just don't get how sweet and useful hatchbacks are and share your sentiment. Why is it that Europeans see this and we somehow don't? How about saying that a station wagon with a lift kit and bigger bumpers that gets 15 MPG is dorky? Oh wait, that's an SUV isn't it?

It's a free country my friend, go ahead an run your *** gas waster of a shoebox on wheels that can't stop and corner well and needs a huge engine just to keep up with traffic. Can't argue bad taste I guess.

That's your opinion. You're certainly entitled to it. I'm not a huge fan of SUVs, but they are useful to many. I grew up using them in Western KS and Colorado, where you actually need them.

Check the thread above regarding Lutz on SAAB. He's right. Without a SUV, which is WHAT PEOPLE WANT - SAAB will LOSE dealers and thus won't be able to sell many cars. How is it that you cannot understand this? Why the anger towards others that differ in opinion from you? (You must be a Democrat, but I digress). I hate nothing more than someone who tells me I'm an idiot or somehow wrong merely because I disagree with them or have different taste.

I hate hatchbacks and wagons because I think they're ugly, but I'm not going to call you an idiot for driving one.

Also, Europeans drive dorky looking small cars because they have to! Gas prices north of $5/gallon and socialist govt's that tax them to death based on engine displacement size doesn't help. Roads are small and congested as well, so SUV's don't fit in the picture over there.

My cars: '01 Viggen Convertible & '03 9-5 Linear Sedan

for some strange reason. deleted text.

dittos

That's your opinion. You're certainly entitled to it. I'm not a huge fan of SUVs, but they are useful to many. I grew up using them in Western KS and Colorado, where you actually need them.


When you live in the Chicago area and see so many SUV's, you begin to wonder what they need them for.

I totally agree with you the SUV's have their place, but most people aren't going to that place with them. Take the argument against wagons, turn it on it's head, and that's why most people buy SUV's.

That's your opinion. You're certainly entitled to it. I'm not a huge fan of SUVs, but they are useful to many. I grew up using them in Western KS and Colorado, where you actually need them.

Fair enough. For the record I don't go tagging Excursions or torching H2s. We live in a (for now) free country where we can chose what we drive and be as inconsiderate as we would like. I can understand that some people really need an SUV and that's fine. However there is no reason why I should see 5 different H2s or twice that many Suburbans in Downtown Boston on a given weekday. Not a single one with a trailor hitch or a speck of mud I might add.

Check the thread above regarding Lutz on SAAB. He's right. Without a SUV, which is WHAT PEOPLE WANT - SAAB will LOSE dealers and thus won't be able to sell many cars. How is it that you cannot understand this? Why the anger towards others that differ in opinion from you? (You must be a Democrat, but I digress)
Independent actually :wink: .

I hate nothing more than someone who tells me I'm an idiot or somehow wrong merely because I disagree with them or have different taste.

I hate hatchbacks and wagons because I think they're ugly, but I'm not going to call you an idiot for driving one.

Isn't an SUV a station wagon with a lift kit anyway?

My anger stems from the fact that these urban assault vehicles pose a threat to other drivers as well as to their own occupants. They polute like hell and are alowed to get away with it. On top of all the above they compromise national security due to their appetites for the refined crude.

You also seem to neglect that SUV sales aren't what they used to be. You say (along with Lutz) that SAAB needs an SUV, I say that SAAB needed an SUV 5 years ago when they were flying off of dealer lots in record numbers. When BMW put out the X5 based off of the 3's platform why didn't SAAB/GM counter with a similar product based off of the 9-5? This would have made them big bucks and solved SAAB's cash crunch while keeping GM happy. The hot family hauler now is a CROSSOVER. This is what SAAB needs NOW, not a 5 years overdue SUV.


Also, Europeans drive dorky looking small cars because they have to! Gas prices north of $5/gallon and socialist govt's that tax them to death based on engine displacement size doesn't help. Roads are small and congested as well, so SUV's don't fit in the picture over there.

A question to the European members of this newsgroup: Would you drive an SUV being fully aware of it's vices if you didn't have to put up with the fuel costs and the traffic?

That's your opinion. You're certainly entitled to it. I'm not a huge fan of SUVs, but they are useful to many. I grew up using them in Western KS and Colorado, where you actually need them.

Fair enough. For the record I don't go tagging Excursions or torching H2s. We live in a (for now) free country where we can chose what we drive and be as inconsiderate as we would like. I can understand that some people really need an SUV and that's fine. However there is no reason why I should see 5 different H2s or twice that many Suburbans in Downtown Boston on a given weekday. Not a single one with a trailor hitch or a speck of mud I might add.

Check the thread above regarding Lutz on SAAB. He's right. Without a SUV, which is WHAT PEOPLE WANT - SAAB will LOSE dealers and thus won't be able to sell many cars. How is it that you cannot understand this? Why the anger towards others that differ in opinion from you? (You must be a Democrat, but I digress)
Independent actually :wink: .

I hate nothing more than someone who tells me I'm an idiot or somehow wrong merely because I disagree with them or have different taste.

I hate hatchbacks and wagons because I think they're ugly, but I'm not going to call you an idiot for driving one.

Isn't an SUV a station wagon with a lift kit anyway?

My anger stems from the fact that these urban assault vehicles pose a threat to other drivers as well as to their own occupants. They polute like hell and are alowed to get away with it. On top of all the above they compromise national security due to their appetites for the refined crude.

You also seem to neglect that SUV sales aren't what they used to be. You say (along with Lutz) that SAAB needs an SUV, I say that SAAB needed an SUV 5 years ago when they were flying off of dealer lots in record numbers. When BMW put out the X5 based off of the 3's platform why didn't SAAB/GM counter with a similar product based off of the 9-5? This would have made them big bucks and solved SAAB's cash crunch while keeping GM happy. The hot family hauler now is a CROSSOVER. This is what SAAB needs NOW, not a 5 years overdue SUV.


Also, Europeans drive dorky looking small cars because they have to! Gas prices north of $5/gallon and socialist govt's that tax them to death based on engine displacement size doesn't help. Roads are small and congested as well, so SUV's don't fit in the picture over there.

A question to the European members of this newsgroup: Would you drive an SUV being fully aware of it's vices if you didn't have to put up with the fuel costs and the traffic?

Why don't people bash exotic sports cars like SUVs? No one "needs" an exotic car that "pollutes like hell" and "guzzles gas" either. For that matter, no one "needs" to fly on private jets since they too "pollute like hell" and guzzle gas.........

I just don't get what's wrong with freedom of choice? Again, I'm not a fan of monstrous SUVs and actually think that people who drive Excursions and Hummers have are making up for "deficiencies" in other areas, but I'm sick of people getting on their high horses and attempting to dictate to other what they can and can't drive.

Did you support the Earth Liberation Front wackos who burned down GM and Hummer dealers in California a couple years ago?

valbowski,

you hate the fact that the 9-7X is a GM product underneath but would rather have a subaru?



nobody is forcing you to buy a suv. you can continue drive a car. one could argue that a brand new truck has better emmissions than a 900/9000 from 10 years ago. i could care less how much gas they guzzle. it's my wallet.

what do you say about the lexus RX400h? or the Ford Escape hybrid?

vi could care less how much gas they guzzle. it's my wallet.



But it's our country and planet. Emissions are related to how much fuel you burn as well. Even if a Suburban is "cleaner" than a 10 year old Saab, it burns a lot more fuel; the difference probably isn't as great as you think.

We don't need to get into a political argument about our dependence on foreign oil, but a lot of negative situations are born out of that.

How much is paid for gas and how much is used has a more than personal effect.

Why don't people bash exotic sports cars like SUVs? No one "needs" an exotic car that "pollutes like hell" and "guzzles gas" either. For that matter, no one "needs" to fly on private jets since they too "pollute like hell" and guzzle gas.........

You can't be serious? How many people own and actually drive exotic cars on a daily basis, or for that matter own private jets? That and a C6 Vette is quite good on fuel as is the new 911. Also you forget that exotics handle like a dream. SUVs on the other hand drive and handle like ****.

I just don't get what's wrong with freedom of choice? Again, I'm not a fan of monstrous SUVs and actually think that people who drive Excursions and Hummers have are making up for "deficiencies" in other areas, but I'm sick of people getting on their high horses and attempting to dictate to other what they can and can't drive.

With freedom comes responsibility. Take that how you want to but it's a fact. For the record my buddy is about to get shipped out, where is his freedom of choice?

Did you support the Earth Liberation Front wackos who burned down GM and Hummer dealers in California a couple years ago?
You've obviously missed what I posed earlier. Please read before making assumptions. Are you going to accuse me of being a communist next?

valbowski,

you hate the fact that the 9-7X is a GM product underneath but would rather have a subaru?



nobody is forcing you to buy a suv. you can continue drive a car. one could argue that a brand new truck has better emmissions than a 900/9000 from 10 years ago. i could care less how much gas they guzzle. it's my wallet.

what do you say about the lexus RX400h? or the Ford Escape hybrid?

My 9000 is 12 years old, I would hope that a new car would be cleaner. As for the hybrid SUVs, I say good for them. The less oil cars use the better. It isn't simply a matter of whether you can afford to fill the tank or not. How much oil we import matters a great deal and the less the better.

Your buddy's freedom of choices lies in that he was not drafted. He chose to enlist or go into OCS. I almost went OCS but decided against it at the last minute. If I had joined, it would have been my duty, my job, to go where my orders directed me. Anyone who volunteers for the military but doesn't want to go to war should think more about their choice to volunteer.

Anyway, I agree this vehicle should have come out at least 2 years ago if not more. It should have been based on the SRX, but those plans were scrapped because GM was more concerned about Cadillac sales than Saab sales. They wanted to see a revitalized Cadillac more because it is an American car make. If the 9-7x had been based on the SRX, I feel a lot of this discussion would be unnecessary.

My thoughts on this topic have been expressed plainly before. I had seriously planned on ordering and purchasing the new 9-7x. Had spent numerous hours researching the details of the 9-7x and was excited about the photos shared by others from the auto shows. The interior is 1st rate in my opinion and I truly was looking forward to taking delivery........but, since fuel use is the major complaint against SUV's, by many here, I believe that a vehicle fuel economy comparison is in order.

Cadillac SRX, BMW X3/5, Porche Cayenne S, and Saab 9-7x seem very close in mpg ratings. The larger SUV's, Escalade, Navigator, Suburban, Hummer, can get as little as 10mpg. The BMW and probably the Porche require premium. The Cadillac and the Saab use regular. A savings of sometimes 40 cents a gallon.

Anyone who volunteers for the military but doesn't want to go to war should think more about their choice to volunteer.
Right, it was indeed his choice to join up. However, I feel that our Milirary sould only be put in harms way at times when there is no other choice. Defending the policies which big Oil has written is not one of those times.

As to the assertion that a new truck has cleaner emissions than my 11 year old saab 9000 aero, I beg to differ.

Check out fueleconomy.gov, and it's pretty clear that very few new trucks emit fewer greenhouse gasses than my saab.

BMW x5: 10.4 tons/year
Suburban (4wd): between 8.7 (on alternate fuel) and 11.0 tons/year
Ford F150, 4wd, 6 cylinder: 10.2 tons/year
My saab: 8.0 tons/year

Granted, those statements make no mention of other emissions, including particulate, NOx, hydrocarbons, etc., but if anyone can produce an emissions statement for their new truck (hybrids and small four-cylinder models excluded) that will rival that of either my 9000 or my older c900, i'll be surprised. I can find my numbers, if anyone is interested.

Unfounded assumptions are useless

Also, regarding military commitments, many of those who serve, while having volunteered, were "coerced" into doing so because of a variety of social and economic factors. Blaming the kids who volunteer and subsequently die overseas, fighting as pawns in our little game of global chess, is shameful. They understand that war is a possibility, but illegitimate wars based on lies, hidden motives, and public deception shouldn't be a consideration. Volunteers can't be blamed for succumbing to military and political propoganda, nor can they be expected to know, upon volunteering, the extent to which their administration would fail them through incompetent leadership, poor decisions, etc.

Sorry to hear Flash the Saab didnot work out for you, I sincerily hope it wasnt't because of a few bad apples in the Saab community ruining the bunch.

I grew up using them in Western KS and Colorado, where you actually need them.
I live in Colorado, yet somehow my family gets by without an SUV.

You don't need an SUV here. Most people have been duped into believeing they do.

(You must be a Democrat, but I digress).
No surprise that the first political snipes would come from a republican.

With all due respect SaabKen, I think the 9-7x is more differentiated from the GMC Envoy and Chevy Trailblazer than you think.

The interior is completely different and much more SAABish. Center console ignition, better seats, typical SAAB dash, better materials etc.

Exterior is similar to the aforementioned models indeed, but it's still different. Different front facia and side panels.

It's got SAABish handling too - lower to the ground, different suspension, different wheels/tires etc.

The bottom line is that it's more than just a GMC or Chevy with SAAB badges on it. Those are the facts my friend.

Yes, but I too am interested in a Saab SUV to go with my 1 Saab 1 Volvo family and frankly the new 9-7X isn't nearly Saabish enough for me. Granted it has all of these key Saab features:

1. Center console ignition switch!
2. aeroplane ****pit Saab interior.
3. Saab air vents - Love them to no end!
4. Euro fit and finish

But....it lacks these key items for me:

1. True Saab seats and headrest (big safety point for my family)
2. True Saab/Volvo safety capabilities
3. 100 percent Saab body (none of this front end only stuff)
4. Hockey Stick rear pillar trademark design
5. wrap-around front like true saabs (see future model sketches)

I don't mind if it has a GM engine b/c at the end of the day it is a SUV which is quite different than Saab's past. But a 250-300hp inline 6 turbo from Sweden would be ideal if they had that.

Once that have this -- I'm there!

I don't believe that any family "NEEDS" a SUV. I grew up in the farmland of the eastern Cascades and unless you're changing water with all 7 of your family memebers at the same time-you sure as hell don't NEED an SUV. Even then-take the flatbed F250.

Saab SUV-an oxymoron.

I'd rather see the name fail than to sell superfluos vehciles. Adapting to the massive oil consumption of our country to sell autos is an amazing jump to a logical fallacy.

Just my opinion.

Rogo

i think all this bickering regarding SUVs is quite laughable.

considering the fact that there is more than just one kind of car brand, it's rather obvious that people don't just buy cars to get from point A to point B. people come to expect a certain pleasure from the vehicle they invest in. and hell, if someone wants to insist on having an argument that's it the quality of the automobile between brands that's important, then howabout this, why is there more than just one color!

cars, for many people, are like an extension of your home. you'd like to feel comfortable in your automobile. so i think that if someone feels more comfortable in a GMC Yukon, than a VW Golf, they shouldn't feel hated for their preference. because the fact is, ALL OF US, even the operators of massive SUVs like Ford Excursions are little tots sharing the roads with the big rigs. you think an 8,000LB SUV is ridiculous? consider 80,000lbs barreling down the highway, haven't you ever noticed that they comprise almost half the traffic!!

the argument is really pointless. the backbone of american commerce is dependent on these massive trucks moving cargo, and no one complains about these, because everyone knows they're completely necessary. america would continue to consume a massive bounty of OIL regardless of how many SUVs there are or not, because unlike other nations we move goods from coast to coast an extreme pace. not many countries come close to rivaling our highway system, it's what american business lives on! so i don't think it comes down to pollution with those of you who hold gripes with SUV drivers, i think it comes down to being angry at someone else because you can't concieve how someone else cant be satisified with driving a smaller car.

the fact is, that more oil reserves have already been discovered in the past year that nearly double what we thought we had before. we're not scheduled to run out of oil until the year 2100, AT LEAST! all the small cars that are on the road today are the result of a government scare that happened in the 70's. the scare is over, WE HAVE PLENTY OF OIL, so be prepared, because the america is likely to once again become a nation dominated by the mighty roar of the v8 engine.

I made my own little thread in the 9-7X section about why it's not a saab, seeing how it doesn't have certain traits that all saab's have had since 1949. However, my biggest reason against a saab or any SUV is the danger they pose. No global warming crap, these vehicles needlessly kill tens of thousands of people every year. They're excessively heavy posing a great danger to small cars. But more dangerous than their weight is their design. Most american SUV's, 9-7X included, are built on pickup truck platforms. Pickups have heavy, rigid frames to support large loads. In an SUV these frame rails ride high, well above where cars are designed to take hits. As a result of this, when an SUV T-bones a car the frame of the suv, being higher than the supports in the door, punchs into the cars passenger compartment. This usually causes severe trama to the upper body and head of whoever happens to be sitting there, often killing them instantly or later in the hospital. You mentioned sports cars as a danger. I would gladly take a hit in my car from a corvette rather than get hit by an excursion going half the speed.

Please for the love of god think of the person you could hit. Do you really want to accidentally kill some one because you didn't want to have a stigma attacted with a wagon?

i think all this bickering regarding SUVs is quite laughable.

? consider 80,000lbs barreling down the highway, haven't you ever noticed that they comprise almost half the traffic!!

the argument is really pointless. the backbone of american commerce is dependent on these massive trucks moving cargo, and no one complains about these, because everyone knows they're completely necessary. america would continue to consume a massive bounty of OIL regardless of how many SUVs there are or not, because unlike other nations we move goods from coast to coast an extreme pace. not many countries come close to rivaling our highway system, it's what american business lives on! so i don't think it comes down to pollution with those of you who hold gripes with SUV drivers, i think it comes down to being angry at someone else because you can't concieve how someone else cant be satisified with driving a smaller car.

the fact is, that more oil reserves have already been discovered in the past year that nearly double what we thought we had before. we're not scheduled to run out of oil until the year 2100, AT LEAST! all the small cars that are on the road today are the result of a government scare that happened in the 70's. the scare is over, WE HAVE PLENTY OF OIL, so be prepared, because the america is likely to once again become a nation dominated by the mighty roar of the v8 engine.

I find that rather illogical. As a previous poster noted, true freedom requires some responsibility. Some people believe that since they can reduce emmissions a tiny bit they are actually improving the world we live in. But if its ok to pollute because others do, than it should be ok to drive like an idiot. Who cares if you kill somebody- other people are doing it and they're are lots of people left if you kill a few. Cripes man, we have laws because complete freedom does not work in a society- they are needed to resolve issues of irresponsibility or lack of clarity. And the laws have yet to to catch up with the issue of pollution. Does that mean we all ignore it until regulations and laws deal with it? If oil was not an issue, there would be no war in Iraq.

For those of you who did not hear, the Kyoto Accord went into effect two days ago:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4501237

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/02/16/kyoto.ap/index.html
(http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/02/16/kyoto.ap/index.html)
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/kyoto/index.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/climate/policies/kyoto.shtml
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/climate/policies/kyoto.shtml)

However it's a myth that private automobiles form the single largest source of GHG emissions because they're not. Industries, agriculture, deforestation and rapid urbanization are the biggest culprits. Yet that doesn't mean that we can't do our part to help slow global warming and its effects. [jumping off soapbox ....]

brob, the likely reason why my argument seems illogical to you is because you bypassed the point.

we are not the only ones who use oil. like i said, it's big shipping trucks that are thursting for the oil. i am not denying america uses an extreme amount of oil, or that we probably invaded iraq for it, but corporate america doesn't do those things to fill the tank of your neighbors SUV, it big rigs, and as even Saabken said, other US industries that the oil craze is all about. SUVs are merely an offshoot of the over-availability of oil.

the increase in US fuel consumption has risen only a small margin due to the introduction of SUVs. besides, SUVs arent the only thing that could kill you in an accident... so could a pick-up truck, school bus, dumptruck... those will all be there even if SUVs are gone, you can't expect traffic to be a safe zone, that's living in a dream world.

you'd like to feel comfortable in your automobile. so i think that if someone feels more comfortable in a GMC Yukon, than a VW Golf, they shouldn't feel hated for their preference.

I feel more comfortable not being around black people. I don’t think I should be hated for my preference.

consider 80,000lbs barreling down the highway, haven't you ever noticed that they comprise almost half the traffic!!

That’s the most ridiculous statement I’ve ever seen. How do big rigs comprise half of the traffic on the road? They don’t even make up a quarter of it.

the backbone of american commerce is dependent on these massive trucks moving cargo, and no one complains about these, because everyone knows they're completely necessary.

If it were feasible and economical to run them all on electricity or some other form of renewable energy, they would. But they have to travel thousands of miles every week, and gasoline is the most reliable, most inexpensive way of doing this.

i think it comes down to being angry at someone else because you can't concieve how someone else cant be satisified with driving a smaller car.

No, it comes down to being angry that unlike ten years ago, I can no longer see ten cars in front of me in traffic. It comes down to being angry that people insist on ruining the roads with twice the weight, ruining the environment with more than twice the emissions, wasting non-renewable energy with less than half the gas mileage, and causing traffic jams with twice the space wasted in traffic. It comes down to being angry that driving a massive vehicle makes your average idiot American feel safe when all they do is make the roads more dangerous and unpredictable. There’s a lot more to it than “being unable to conceive” the massive stupidity that most SUV drivers seem to harbor.

the fact is, that more oil reserves have already been discovered in the past year that nearly double what we thought we had before.

This is dead wrong. My company does consulting for oil and gas companies. There has been an increase in oil supply in the last five years, not an increase in “oil reserves discovered.” The increase in supply is due to advancements in recovery well technology, aka, getting more oil out of “dry” wells. Don’t state something as fact unless you know what you’re talking about.

we're not scheduled to run out of oil until the year 2100, AT LEAST!

Another fallacy, and the predictions you hear for anything past 2030 are all based no the assumption that we’ll move more and more towards alternative fuels. I believe we will, and I believe our oil supply will last quite a lot longer than people can imagine at this point in time, but that doesn’t give us the right to wantonly waste what we can while we still can.

all the small cars that are on the road today are the result of a government scare that happened in the 70's. the scare is over, WE HAVE PLENTY OF OIL, so be prepared, because the america is likely to once again become a nation dominated by the mighty roar of the v8 engine.

For those people reading this tripe: DO NOT BELIEVE A WORD OF WHAT THIS IGNORANT, ILL-INFORMED FOOL IS SAYING. We don’t have “plenty of oil”, despite what Bush and the other idiots at the top of the monetary food chain would have you think. There is a crisis, one that gets worse every year. We’re not in crunch time now, but keep it up and in ten years we will be.

However it's a myth that private automobiles form the single largest source of GHG emissions because they're not. Industries, agriculture, deforestation and rapid urbanization are the biggest culprits. Yet that doesn't mean that we can't do our part to help slow global warming and its effects. [jumping off soapbox ....]
I don't know if private vehicles are the biggest cause of green house gasses, but they are certainly a big part of in the US. Half of all the oil we consume in a day goes to fueling our autos, you can't seriously say vehicles aren't a factor. I'm not saying SUVs are to blame, but they certainy aren't helping. It's really just passenger vehicles in general.

I don't know if private vehicles are the biggest cause of green house gasses, but they are certainly a big part of in the US. Half of all the oil we consume in a day goes to fueling our autos, you can't seriously say vehicles aren't a factor. I'm not saying SUVs are to blame, but they certainy aren't helping. It's really just passenger vehicles in general.

You are correct in that a large part of daily/annual oil consumption in North America is attributed to road transport (all forms). In fact according to the 2000 UN Economic Commission for Europe report, United States' annual road traffic-based oil consumption is 32.8% or 1/3 of the nation's total oil consumption. In Canada that figure is just below 25%. For the European Union as a whole, road traffic-based oil consumption is just over 12% of total oil consumption.

As for consumption of oil and oil products by sector, transportation (all modes incl. road, marine, air) accounts for 66% of total consumption in the US compared to other sectors such as energy transformation/delivery and industrial. In Canada transportation accounts for 51% of total oil consumption. The EU as a whole also averages at 51%.

Anyone wishing to refer to the source can go to:

http://www.unece.org/Welcome.html


At the end of the day, whatever way, shape or form that we can act on to minimize personal energy consumption and think more frugally in terms of the ecological footprint we impose on our society and our environment contributes to the collective benefit and quality of life sustainability. Whether that's owning a 9-7X but commuting by transit one day a week or reducing your household Saab fleet size by one :roll: to three :)

[stepping off soapbox ....]

SUVs give me nightmares :o
Maybe Saab will make them more easier to handle

The Volvo XC90 SUV is that company's #1 selling model.

Pastries for thought.

There is NO WAY to transport large amounts of product efficently (without using fossil fuels)-here in the US, Hydrogen is still not viable. The most efficient way is actually Locomatives burning diesel (per KG/LT).

Most central US hubs are transfering their in/out ports to railways. That's what we are voting for here in out small hub of America.

What pisses me off about what I view here is the number of SUVs I see cruising on the freeways/highways with one or two people in them (and I follow them as long as they are on the highway/freeway) as they drive for 60miles.

I get 31mph in my Viggen with my GF and her little brother-as I bop around town and drive to my parents house (85 miles of highway).

No family NEEDS A SUV-our country perpetuates the BS.

Rogo

What pisses me off about what I view here is the number of SUVs I see cruising on the freeways/highways with one or two people in them (and I follow them as long as they are on the highway/freeway) as they drive for 60miles.

I get 31mph in my Viggen with my GF and her little brother-as I bop around town and drive to my parents house (85 miles of highway).

No family NEEDS A SUV-our country perpetuates the BS.

Rogo

Rogo,

I have 2 straight forward questions for you.
1. Who is the sanctioner of vehicles so that I may get their approval before my next purchase?
2. What is the minimum mpg required for a vehicle to be "acceptable"?

Thank you in advance for your reply, as this will help me focus on the approved vehicles. As an American, I must confess to being bombarded constantly by BS and since you have the wisdom to know what is right for each person, I humbly seek your counsel.

1. Who is the sanctioner of vehicles so that I may get their approval before my next purchase?
2. What is the minimum mpg required for a vehicle to be "acceptable"?


How about your conscience?

You are free to chose the vehicle that you drive. Just don't expect a good relationship with those who are adversely affected by your choice.

How about your conscience?

You are free to chose the vehicle that you drive. Just don't expect a good relationship with those who are adversely affected by your choice.


Valbowski1980,

I was not aware that you were answering Rogo's reply's, and seeing as you are, please reply with the information I requested and need. Who is the source of approval's and what is the minimum mpg required. I do not need more of your philosophy. You have been very clear. I understand that fuel preservation is beneficial. I simply need to know what is the minimum mpg, so that I can eliminate from consideration all vehicles that do not meet that requirement.

Please help.

Valbowski1980,

I was not aware that you were answering Rogo's reply's, and seeing as you are, please reply with the information I requested and need. Who is the source of approval's and what is the minimum mpg required. I do not need more of your philosophy. You have been very clear. I understand that fuel preservation is beneficial. I simply need to know what is the minimum mpg, so that I can eliminate from consideration all vehicles that do not meet that requirement.

Please help.

In case you missed it, the answer to both of your questions is your conscience. There is no law stating the minimum mpg and no source of approval so it is up to you and what you can sleep at night with. Besides, the objections to SUVs aren't just limited to fuel economy are they?

I hope this is clear enough of a reply.

I have 2 straight forward questions for you.
1. Who is the sanctioner of vehicles so that I may get their approval before my next purchase?
2. What is the minimum mpg required for a vehicle to be "acceptable"?
You can not getting anything bigger than what is absolutely necessary. So nothing more than a moped cause those sport bikes and gas guzzling civics are far to thristy. :cheesy:

.....in his Socialist Utopia, everyone would have extremely limited access to government subsidized Segways.

.....in his Socialist Utopia, everyone would have extremely limited access to government subsidized Segways.

:roll: So I'm a "Socialist" now? What ever happened to "Democrat"?

In case you missed it, the answer to both of your questions is your conscience. There is no law stating the minimum mpg and no source of approval so it is up to you and what you can sleep at night with. Besides, the objections to SUVs aren't just limited to fuel economy are they?

I hope this is clear enough of a reply.

Valbowski1980,

I got the part about my conscience. It is however not yet clear to me, as you and others have so pointedly stated, my conscience has been tainted by too much input of BS. and thus led me down a dark path of erroneous conclusions. Therefore, I am seeking wisdom from those who are "enlightened" and simply wish to know what is the minimum mpg required of a vehicle so that it will comply with the "good for the world" mentality.

Please give me the minumum mpg number.

It has been said that 10-12 is not good and that 31 is good. But I have no idea where the point is that bad becomes good. I simply wish to know, what minumum mpg makes a vehicle "good".

There is NO WAY to transport large amounts of product efficently (without using fossil fuels)-here in the US, Hydrogen is still not viable. The most efficient way is actually Locomatives burning diesel (per KG/LT).

Most central US hubs are transfering their in/out ports to railways. That's what we are voting for here in out small hub of America.

What pisses me off about what I view here is the number of SUVs I see cruising on the freeways/highways with one or two people in them (and I follow them as long as they are on the highway/freeway) as they drive for 60miles.

I get 31mph in my Viggen with my GF and her little brother-as I bop around town and drive to my parents house (85 miles of highway).

No family NEEDS A SUV-our country perpetuates the BS.

Rogo

****, im with rogo, i get scared of the people that think they can do anything in their suvs. long live 33mpg highway, and 155mph capability, together in one practical package, my viggen.

Please give me the minumum mpg number.

It has been said that 10-12 is not good and that 31 is good.

Since there are no set standards for what is the right mpg (and I'm sure that you are well aware of this and are therefore asking a rhetorical question) I will give you what I think are acceptable numbers for a reasonably sized family vehicle: 23-28 city, 28-34 highway. Good would be zero mpg but that isn't around at this time.

Since there are no set standards for what is the right mpg (and I'm sure that you are well aware of this and are therefore asking a rhetorical question) I will give you what I think are acceptable numbers for a reasonably sized family vehicle: 23-28 city, 28-34 highway. Good would be zero mpg but that isn't around at this time.

Although you lost me on the very last sentence "Good would be zero...", I think that your range of numbers for city and highway is a very good answer for anyone promoting fuel efficiency as part of their automotive arguments. Well done.

Since there are no set standards for what is the right mpg (and I'm sure that you are well aware of this and are therefore asking a rhetorical question) I will give you what I think are acceptable numbers for a reasonably sized family vehicle: 23-28 city, 28-34 highway. Good would be zero mpg but that isn't around at this time.
That's unfair, I can only get 22 city if I completely baby my 9-5. :cry:

Why don't we just go with the government standards for a gas-guzzler which is 20 mpg average for a light-truck/suv and 27 mpg average for a car. I believe that's based on 45% city and 55% highway, but I'm not really sure.

Since there are no set standards for what is the right mpg (and I'm sure that you are well aware of this and are therefore asking a rhetorical question) I will give you what I think are acceptable numbers for a reasonably sized family vehicle: 23-28 city, 28-34 highway. Good would be zero mpg but that isn't around at this time.

good would be zero mpg? you must drive a hummer.

:)

I was talking about a car that will run on something else and would therefore get zero mpg since it wouldn't need oil.

I think the word you were looking for was infinity then. :cheesy:

:)

I was talking about a car that will run on something else and would therefore get zero mpg since it wouldn't need oil.
if something got zero mpg it would burn stuff and go nowhere. zero gallons per mile is what you are thinking of.

if something got zero mpg it would burn stuff and go nowhere. zero gallons per mile is what you are thinking of.

Who says that what it consumes would be measured in gallons? ;)

There is a new development-SUVS are being converted to snowmobiles with track/hybrid units affixed to their hubs.

One conspicuous characteristic of Europe & Russia that I observed while driving there was that there were NO trucks and very very few SUVS (the only ones being Range Rovers). I saw many familys in station wagons and I noticed a large majority of vechiles were smaller 3 door hatchbacks and small mini-vans. What made it conspicious was coming home and driving through Seattle with 5 lanes of traffic filled with one person SUVS and large 4wheel drive trucks.

It's even worse out here in the East because the farmers get decent discounts on the fuel and are able to fill their SUVS and 4x4s with relatively cheap gas and then drive them like they're road machines. Most of the farmers I know attach secondary and third order tanks so they can fill them up for their long drives. (I've driven the SPG many times - offered - just so that they won't drive the quad cab 4x4 Chevy 230 miles for a harrowbed flywheel).

This SUV thing will stop soon when the price of oil continues to rise.

Rogo

Unfortunately there is no sanction for the idiotic use of an inefficent vehicle (I'm not saying you use it that way).

And my req range for milage would be 22-32mpg-exception would be commercial transport-and I voted yes for the port transformation.

Rogo