Media Bashing for 3/30/06

[Guest Josh]

Each day I plan to take a look at what the "major players" are saying in the news about General Motors. For instance, the US Government has voted to change the U.S. fuel economy rules for large S.U.V.'s

For this brings me to my very first exhibit:

The Fox News Channel. Take a look at the very first paragraph, all General Motors products mentioned, however we know for a fact that more vehicles on the market from foreign competition have worse fuel economy for what they offer.

Exhibit #1: BALTIMORE — The Bush administration issued new rules Wednesday ratcheting up gas mileage requirements for pickup trucks, sport utility vehicles and vans, for the first time covering the largest SUVs on the road like the Hummer H2 and Chevrolet Suburban.

Not only does this article point out two GM products that are meant to clearly slander the company, but it does so at a time when negative news articles are becoming a comfortable pillow for the Christine Tierneys of today to rest their heads upon at night while peacefully dreaming up their next slander article.

Exhibit #2: U.S. automakers such as General Motors Corp. (GM) and Ford Motor Co.(F) have said the current system hurts them against the competition because sales of large SUVs must be offset by the sale of smaller light trucks to comply with fuel economy rules.

General Motors and Ford have said this last year when the Goverment announced similar changes to the fuel economy standards. Nice way to quote 2005!

Now, let me ask you this. Where are the Toyota Sequio's of the world? Where are the Nissan Armada's of the United States mentioned in this? You won't see them. It's "just not the right thing to do" in the 21st Century.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,189448,00.html

[regfootball]

Josh, I would bet any of those writers are too big of p*ssies to ever reply to any sort of questioning of their 'journalistic integrity'.

I would love to see one of these dolts answer honest questions about the industry. My bet is they would exposed for all they are worth, 2 bit hacks who couldn't cut it covering semipro sports or restaurants. Most of them anyways. Some auto journalists are good.

i am in favor of the CAFE raise, however, i know that GM and Ford will be singled out for bad press because of it.

Interesting today. Had to ride with a coworker to a work function today in his Pilot. While he was driving, he made some comment about the H2 in front of him and GM's 'fuel sucking vehicles'. Funny, my other friend has a Pilot too, and it gets 15 mpg on a good day. I wonder if that's what my coworker gets with his. If so, its pathetic. But its a Honda, so its ok if that drinks gas.

BTW, I consider any vehicle that gets less than 20mpg regualrly to be a thirsty car or truck.

this could be a very good daily board. I would love to see it gorw a following and have some people see some of the bias that occurs here.

Edited March 30, 2006 by regfootball

[daves87rs]

Because they are easy targetsm like Mr. Jackson...

Then again, like for a certain automaker, that needs SUV sales to survive.....

[buyacargetacheck]

I was actually surprised to see Larry Kudlow and 2 of 3 of his guests proudly say that they drive GM vehicles. The admissions came on his show on CNBC on Tuesday while they were discussing the auto industry. GM stock was a buy according to one of the guests. Wow, that's 3 Eastern banking and finance types all driving GM vehicles (Escalades I bet) all in one setting. Maybe this means that NY money men/women statistically prefer GM. How's that for irony!

Edited March 30, 2006 by buyacargetacheck

[Daryl Z71]

Instead of making regulations why doesn't our worthless piece of crap president lower gas prices then we won't have to bother with any of this!!! God Politicians are so stupid there only in it for the money!

[Hudson]

I know this is a GM fan site, but does that mean you have to be blind to certain facts? Nissan and Toyota do in fact build full-sized SUVs, but GM (since the demise of the Excursion) is the only manufacturer of SUVs in the over 8,500 lb GVWR range. The Suburban 2500 and the Hummer H2 (and the Hummer H1) are in this heavier class which have been exempt from CAFE rules.

Additionally, how many Sequoias and Armadas were built last year? About 44,000 and 50,000 respectively. And Suburbans? About 75,000...plus another 45,000 Yukon XLs not to mention the 142,000 Tahoes and 74,000 Yukons and nearly 26,000 H2s. This doesn't include the 107,000 Expeditions and 15,000 Excursions.

Edited March 30, 2006 by Hudson

[PurdueGuy]

Instead of making regulations why doesn't our worthless piece of crap president lower gas prices then we won't have to bother with any of this!!! God Politicians are so stupid there only in it for the money!

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

I know this is a GM fan site, but does that mean you have to be blind to certain facts? Nissan and Toyota do in fact build full-sized SUVs, but GM (since the demise of the Excursion) is the only manufacturer of SUVs in the over 8,500 lb GVWR range. The Suburban 2500 and the Hummer H2 (and the Hummer H1) are in this heavier class which have been exempt from CAFE rules.

Okay, so just because GM sees a VERY lucrative market and an opportunity to make some much needed profit, they get singled out and killed? What about Toyota's 'bigger than anything else Tundra'? Besides, I'm sure they (The imports) would LIKE to be in this class and probably, eventually will be. ESPECIALLY after articles like this FINISH OFF the domestics. But then it'll be all fine and dandy for them to get horrible fuel economy, like it is now.

Additionally, how many Sequoias and Armadas were built last year? About 44,000 and 50,000 respectively. And Suburbans? About 75,000...plus another 45,000 Yukon XLs not to mention the 142,000 Tahoes and 74,000 Yukons and nearly 26,000 H2s. This doesn't include the 107,000 Expeditions and 15,000 Excursions.

Okay, so because GM and Ford are more in tune with consumer taste and actually BEST the Japanese in one area, they get picked on ANYWAY?!?!?! It's not our problem that the Japanese truck offerings SUCK. The inefficiencies are STILL the same regardless how many models they sell. THis is just more example of GM and FORD being DAMNED if they do and DAMNED if they don't and a typical (while somewhat logical) MEDIA skewed mindset on the subject.

What do you suggest???? Should GM and Ford be taken to task regardless (We all KNOW and KNEW this would happen anyway---right?) or should they GIVE UP sales to the asians? (Something I have a sneaking suspicion is on the agenda of some of these 'journalists' anyway)

It all boils down to this... FACTS (As in FUEL ECONOMY numbers) don't matter. What matters is who can screw over the domestics fastest and this is an easy target (BOth for the main purpose AND to seal their bankruptcy) Then, once GM and Ford DO relinquish these sales (That is the goal right? For one purpose or another) we can all be happy buying 250,000 THIRSTIER than Tahoe Sequoias and NOTHING will be said of it because Toyota will still have the press hyponotised by the Prius.

It's ridiculous... Toyota does the typical baitand switch and gets away with it, yet the domestics are CRITICIZED regardless... Slower sales of these brute=CRITICIZM, higher sales of these brutes=CRITICIZM... They CANNOT win.

**See my point?**

Mineta said it would help close loopholes used in the past by automakers to meet fuel economy standards and level the playing field for automakers.

Hmmm.... Sounds like an alternative agenda is coming out there.... Eventhough I don't see how it would level the playing field.

Automakers have noted that the final plan will likely mean seven straight years of higher fuel economy requirements for light trucks. The industry has fought previous attempts to raise the standards but has expressed support for the proposal's direction.

I love how they include this pargraph right after the GM and Ford statement so as to then imply (With the bolded words) that ONLY GM and FORD have fought to not raise the standards.

[Hudson]

Okay, so just because GM sees a VERY lucrative market and an opportunity to make some much needed profit, they get singled out and killed?

Why do people need these things? Why is it that there's only one country in the world that sells these types of vehicles...everyone seems to get around this. I'll admit that there are some people who need these things, but a large percentage of these buyers don't need them.

I'm all for freedom of choice, but I'm also for not wasting energy, resources, road space, etc. I want GM to succeed, but does this mean they are incapable of buliding a fuel efficient vehicle AND making money? Is it one or the other?

[ellives]

Umm - the Excursion was not killed. It was unavailable for one year I believe and then returned to the lineup. Check www.ford.com.

I know this is a GM fan site, but does that mean you have to be blind to certain facts? Nissan and Toyota do in fact build full-sized SUVs, but GM (since the demise of the Excursion) is the only manufacturer of SUVs in the over 8,500 lb GVWR range. The Suburban 2500 and the Hummer H2 (and the Hummer H1) are in this heavier class which have been exempt from CAFE rules.

Additionally, how many Sequoias and Armadas were built last year? About 44,000 and 50,000 respectively. And Suburbans? About 75,000...plus another 45,000 Yukon XLs not to mention the 142,000 Tahoes and 74,000 Yukons and nearly 26,000 H2s. This doesn't include the 107,000 Expeditions and 15,000 Excursions.

[CARBIZ]

I'm with Hudson on this one. The U.S. (and to a lesser extent, Canada) are anomolies on the world stage. Many European countries are just as affluent as us, yet they all make do with 1.3 litre engines and Smart cars, etc.

We may laugh, but the U.S. imports 40% of its oil and we all know what Katrina did to oil prices.

There is nothing wrong with freedom of choice, but with a nod to future generations maybe we should be looking at what we actually need to drive every day. An Impala is every bit as roomy and comfortable as a Tahoe and for 90% of the people who are driving Tahoes every day an Impala is all they really need.

We have the freedom to choose to drive more fuel efficient vehicles today before some petty tyrant forces it on us tomorrow...........

[PurdueGuy]

Why do people need these things? Why is it that there's only one country in the world that sells these types of vehicles...everyone seems to get around this. I'll admit that there are some people who need these things, but a large percentage of these buyers don't need them.

I'm all for freedom of choice, but I'm also for not wasting energy, resources, road space, etc. I want GM to succeed, but does this mean they are incapable of buliding a fuel efficient vehicle AND making money? Is it one or the other?

Sounds like your beef is with the buyer, not GM. The buyer largely dictates what form the vehicle takes. You're right that many of the buyers could get by with something more efficient (lighter, less power, smaller). Many of the buyers of these vehicles wouldn't buy the things if they were less sturdy (lighter), less powerful, or smaller.

[ellives]

Actually it's the politicians that have screwed the big SUV manufacturers over in the long run by having any CAFE standards at all. The idea of mandating this crap is pure folly and has been proven over and over as unsuccessful. The market, and the market alone will determine mileage numbers. The politicians just don't have the guts to tolerate the whining when the morons buying these big vehicles bitch and whine because it costs them a hundred bucks to fill the damn things up.

When gas was under a buck a gallon nobody cared about mileage so they bought big vehicles. Now that it's $2.50, mileage is a problem. Cry me a river. Don't even get me STARTED on the "gas guzzler" tax. It's ridiculous I have to pay one on an STS that gets in the high 20's highway mileage when SUV owners don't pay it and get in the high teens.

In fact the government already has the ultimate throttle on this stuff already - the gas tax. If they want people to conserve, they should just double the gas tax. The politicians are too busy kissing the asses of every special interest group out there so they don't, but it is the ultimate tool to control conservation. Think "Federal Reserve."

Why do people need these things? Why is it that there's only one country in the world that sells these types of vehicles...everyone seems to get around this. I'll admit that there are some people who need these things, but a large percentage of these buyers don't need them.

I'm all for freedom of choice, but I'm also for not wasting energy, resources, road space, etc. I want GM to succeed, but does this mean they are incapable of buliding a fuel efficient vehicle AND making money? Is it one or the other?

[ellives]

So if you feel this way, write to your congressmen and tell them you want the gas tax to go up. People will be buying fuel efficient cars in droves. Oh and by the way, this is WHY Europe buys 1.3 liter engines, etc. THEIR goverments tax the hell out of the fuel prices. Do some research and you'll find what I say is true.

I'm with Hudson on this one.  The U.S. (and to a lesser extent, Canada) are anomolies on the world stage.  Many European countries are just as affluent as us, yet they all make do with 1.3 litre engines and Smart cars, etc.

  We may laugh, but the U.S. imports 40% of its oil and we all know what Katrina did to oil prices.

  There is nothing wrong with freedom of choice, but with a nod to future generations maybe we should be looking at what we actually need to drive every day.  An Impala is every bit as roomy and comfortable as a Tahoe and for 90% of the people who are driving Tahoes every day an Impala is all they really need.

  We have the freedom to choose to drive more fuel efficient vehicles today before some petty tyrant forces it on us tomorrow...........

[Variance]

Umm - the Excursion was not killed. It was unavailable for one year I believe and then returned to the lineup. Check www.ford.com.

No. The Excursion is dead alright. The Expedition EL is supposed to (in a sense, not fully) take its place. There no Excursion listed on Ford.com, either.

[Hudson]

Umm - the Excursion was not killed. It was unavailable for one year I believe and then returned to the lineup. Check www.ford.com.

Umm...no. The Excursion ended production last year. This year, the Expedition EL will fill in the space left by the old Excursion, except that the Expedition EL will be an under 8500 lb SUV, unlike the Excursion. Which is the entire point I was making.

[Hudson]

So if you feel this way, write to your congressmen and tell them you want the gas tax to go up. People will be buying fuel efficient cars in droves. Oh and by the way, this is WHY Europe buys 1.3 liter engines, etc. THEIR goverments tax the hell out of the fuel prices. Do some research and you'll find what I say is true.

Understood. And while I'm not for adding new taxes (politicians can't be trusted with anything, ESPECIALLY my money), taxing fuel makes more sense than CAFE.

CAFE requires the manufacturers to build fewer gas guzzlers, but since buyers still want them it doesn't encourage manufacturers to make more efficient vehicles. CAFE drove production of less fuel efficient vehicles to Mexico and Canada and Australia...and holding CAFE numbers the same for as long as they have, they've allowed technology to surge past the law.

Taxing fuel (again, I'm not asking any politician to push for this, not that they would since it would lose them their job at the next election) would encourage people to buy smaller, more efficient vehicles...which is the smart way to go. Increase the demand instead of limiting the supply, which would drive up prices on the desireable large vehicles.

If I could be guarranteed that the additional tax money would go to improve roads and schools, I'd vote for increased taxes on gas. But I'm already driving a car that gets 35 mpg daily, because I'm against WASTING my money on gas. And that's the concept I would like to impart on others, but Americans don't think that way.

[ellives]

OK - now I see your point. I don't it was conveyed clearly in the first post. Thanks.

Umm...no. The Excursion ended production last year. This year, the Expedition EL will fill in the space left by the old Excursion, except that the Expedition EL will be an under 8500 lb SUV, unlike the Excursion. Which is the entire point I was making.

[Hudson]

I assumed I covered this territory in my last post, until I reread it.

Actually it's the politicians that have screwed the big SUV manufacturers over in the long run by having any CAFE standards at all.

SUVs have tiny little CAFE standards. Trucks are only required, as a fleet, to average about 21 mpg (and this isn't what you see on the sticker). I don't see how they've been screwed here...GM and Ford could easily surpass these averages with each of their light-duty vehicles but they don't want to because it will only encourage lawmakers to raise the averages further.

And I don't see SUV manufacturers being screwed by CAFE...quite the opposite. By limiting the number of SUVs that can be sold, manufacturers are allowed to increase their prices (simple supply and demand), which increases their bottom line. The argument was made that large SUVs are the last area where GM and Ford excel, but it's BECAUSE of CAFE that they've done so relatively well in this area.

When gas was under a buck a gallon nobody cared about mileage so they bought big vehicles. Now that it's $2.50, mileage is a problem. Cry me a river.

This adds fuel to my argument about raising gas prices. And you're right that SUVs should not be exempt from "gas guzzler" taxes.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Why do people need these things? Why is it that there's only one country in the world that sells these types of vehicles...everyone seems to get around this. I'll admit that there are some people who need these things, but a large percentage of these buyers don't need them.

By in large, I agree, I would probably NOT buy an SUV this big, BUT:

That's NOT GM's problem, now is it? And apparently TOYOTA and Nissan don't think it's THEIR problem either.

People BUY what they want... GM BUILDS what people want. WHY in God's name should GM be ATTACKED for effectively doing business?!?!?!?

Yet, everyday, it seem that the media and the greenies favorite past time is bashing Detroit for doing business successfully. THEN in the very same breath they CRITICIZE the company for losing money. It's a no win situation and THIS is one POSITIVE and one market Detroit NAILED (!!!) even consistenetly outsmarting the asians, except instead of being CELEBRATED as the success tory and victory it is; the biased media only CHASTISES them MORE. Either because they're jealous of Detroits success or because they want to END Detroits success....

I'd be willing to make a guess that if the shoe were on the other foot, as in, Toyota and Nissan made these vehicles, we wouldn't see 85% of the NEGATIVE media about them. NEVER do you see an article focused SOLELY on the environmental destruction/oil consumption of the Titan, Armada, Tundra, Sequoia or 4Runner and what's even more disturbing is that; even with these companies RATCHETING up their truck assault, we'll STILL not see negative PR.

What happened when supposedly enviro-friendly Subaru classified their Outback as a truck, then produced ANOTHER SUV?!?!?!?! NOTHING.

What happened when Toyota introduced the new Tundra and FJ Cruiser, the BIGGEST light duty truck to roll on american roads and it's 5TH SUV? NOTHING!

What happened when Honda started producing their "truck" that couldn't get better fuel economy than a V8 Avalanche? IT GOT KUDOS!!!

What happened when Nissan BLACKMAILED the government into giving it CAFE exemptions by saying it would be forced to move Sentra production???? NOTHING!!!!

These examples PROVE that articles like this (Although I thought it wasn't that bad) are nothing more than either outdated rhetoric OR a smear campaign.

BTW, according to the EPA the Toyota Land Cruiser gets 14 MPG which is about the same boat as a 13 MPG Hummer H2.... WHY is there NOT the same negative sentiment associated with the precious Toyota?!?!?!?! "Because Hummer sales more" Well, 1) I'm not sure if that's true and 2) Once again, GM is to be chastised for making a BETTER and more appealing product?!?! (And don't say it isn't better---It sells more, so it's BETTER! It's an all mighty GM vehicle that "people actually want to buy" over it's competitors. Don't even try)

I'm all for freedom of choice, but I'm also for not wasting energy, resources, road space, etc. I want GM to succeed, but does this mean they are incapable of buliding a fuel efficient vehicle AND making money? Is it one or the other?

GM's SUVs LEAD the segment in fuel economy.... Sure, I'd like to have a 50MPG mega SUV, but that's hard to do when you're bleeding 10.6 billion a year and your business has been declining for 30 years (Some self enflicted, some aided LARGELY by personal agendas)

I'm just saying the same thing that many here have told me many times... Don't shoot the messenger. It's not GM, nor Ford, nor Toyota or Nissans fault for that matter, that Americans desire and buy LARGE vehicles.

[loki]

this leads to other questions... if we reduce our gas usuage a considerable amout, somehow, where will the $ needed to upkeep our roads and build new ones come from---- more and more gas taxes? hopefully not

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

The argument was made that large SUVs are the last area where GM and Ford excel, but it's BECAUSE of CAFE that they've done so relatively well in this area.

So you're going to sit there with a straight face and tell me that GMT800 and better yet, GMT900 vehicles ONLY excelled because of CAFE and not on merits???

That people are paying almost $60,000 for an Cadillac-ed Tahoe because of CAFE?!?!?

I mean no offense at all by this Hudson, and I'm not asking you to defend anything (Because you don't have too, opinions are opinions) but you seem VERY anti-GM and anti-Ford to me. I certainly hope that doesn't carry over to your job as much as it does with statements such as the above. (If I understood the statement correctly)

[ellives]

This is a point I poorly tried to make to Hudson. GM pursued the big SUV's because the market wanted them. If the CAFE standards didn't exist, the market would not have been unnaturally slanted in the favor of SUV's, GM would then have been forced to be more competitive in the passengar car business. NOW because gas prices have floated up, people are moving away from SUV's and GM's money making market segment. You can certainly blame GM for putting all their eggs in one basket but I still feel the government should abandon CAFE and use gas tax to manage the problem. It's so much simpler to manage!

KISS = "Keep It Simple Stupid"

By in large, I agree, I would probably NOT buy an SUV this big, BUT:

That's NOT GM's problem, now is it? And apparently TOYOTA and Nissan don't think it's THEIR problem either.

People BUY what they want... GM BUILDS what people want. WHY in God's name should GM be ATTACKED for effectively doing business?!?!?!?

Yet, everyday, it seem that the media and the greenies favorite past time is bashing Detroit for doing business successfully. THEN in the very same breath they CRITICIZE the company for losing money. It's a no win situation and THIS is one POSITIVE and one market Detroit NAILED (!!!) even consistenetly outsmarting the asians, except instead of being CELEBRATED as the success tory and victory it is; the biased media only CHASTISES them MORE. Either because they're jealous of Detroits success or because they want to END Detroits success....

I'd be willing to make a guess that if the shoe were on the other foot, as in, Toyota and Nissan made these vehicles, we wouldn't see 85% of the NEGATIVE media about them. NEVER do you see an article focused SOLELY on the environmental destruction/oil consumption of the Titan, Armada, Tundra, Sequoia or 4Runner and what's even more disturbing is that; even with these companies RATCHETING up their truck assault, we'll STILL not see negative PR.

What happened when supposedly enviro-friendly Subaru classified their Outback as a truck, then produced ANOTHER SUV?!?!?!?! NOTHING.

What happened when Toyota introduced the new Tundra and FJ Cruiser, the BIGGEST light duty truck to roll on american roads and it's 5TH SUV? NOTHING!

What happened when Honda started producing their "truck" that couldn't get better fuel economy than a V8 Avalanche? IT GOT KUDOS!!!

What happened when Nissan BLACKMAILED the government into giving it CAFE exemptions by saying it would be forced to move Sentra production???? NOTHING!!!!

These examples PROVE that articles like this (Although I thought it wasn't that bad) are nothing more than either outdated rhetoric OR a smear campaign.

BTW, according to the EPA the Toyota Land Cruiser gets 14 MPG which is about the same boat as a 13 MPG Hummer H2.... WHY is there NOT the same negative sentiment associated with the precious Toyota?!?!?!?! "Because Hummer sales more" Well, 1) I'm not sure if that's true and 2) Once again, GM is to be chastised for making a BETTER and more appealing product?!?! (And don't say it isn't better---It sells more, so it's BETTER! It's an all mighty GM vehicle that "people actually want to buy" over it's competitors. Don't even try)

GM's SUVs LEAD the segment in fuel economy.... Sure, I'd like to have a 50MPG mega SUV, but that's hard to do when you're bleeding 10.6 billion a year and your business has been declining for 30 years (Some self enflicted, some aided LARGELY by personal agendas)

I'm just saying the same thing that many here have told me many times... Don't shoot the messenger. It's not GM, nor Ford, nor Toyota or Nissans fault for that matter, that Americans desire and buy LARGE vehicles.

[haypops]

A few unrelated observations

1. an increased fuel tax would most hurt the trucking industry followed by the poorest ($) drivers in society who are least able to afford the increase. Removing Cafe and raising fuel taxes would mean the wealthiest in society would use more fuel and the poorest in society would pay more. I am not saying we shouldn't do it. I am just saying there are serious consequences for all these changes.

2. Why do people buy vehicles over 10,000GVW? They do it for their precious 2 weeks vacations each year. Again I am not saying its right or wrong, it just is. I heard a fleet expert on the radio some time ago. It was his contention that any feature/function that you use less than 10% of the time should be rented instead of purchased.

3. I am of the opinion that the most painless way to lower national fuel consumption is for individuals to purchase/rent multiple sizes of vehicles and use the the smallest appropiate vehicle for the job at hand. I used to do this but in the last 20 years auto insurance and state vehicle taxes have become repressive. Why should the f@#king insurance companies charge liability insurance for more than one vehicle/household driver at a time. Likewise, the state should charge a minimal fee for additional vehicles registered to a household.

[Guest YellowJacket894]

Just another example of how the automotive media (and automotive journalism) is become more and more coarse and untruthful.

What we really is a handful of journalists that can review cars with a honest, unbiased point of view, write it and get it published, and deny all bribes from automotive companies.

Sadly, money talks and it talked the media into becoming a mass of idiots dry-humping the Toyota logo. Such a pity...

Edited March 31, 2006 by YellowJacket894

[Camino LS6]

More than any other nation in the world the US is a country on wheels. We have the best and most extensive roadway system and use it to its capacity. We travel all the time for business and pleasure. Our economy is based upon this reality (right or wrong). Even the make-up of our towns and businesses, shopping malls and government installations and most completely, our suburbs Rely on the automobile. These parameters are deeply entrenched and unique in the world. We have no other way to function as a society. We have no effective national public transit system. We have a high standard of living and love our vacations and leisure activities. Think about these points and then try to put the SUV into context.

Yes, CAFE changed things dramatically in favor of the SUV craze. When SUVs and trucks really made inroads into the former client base of station wagons and large cars the cars were so heavily impacted by CAFE and other regulations that they simply couldn't do the job any longer. We still wanted to tow our boats, and trailers and a Taurus wagon was never gonna cut it. Then the more financially saavy among us discovered that SUVs fit into the over 8600# truck category for tax write -offs. This accellerated depreciation was intended to benefit those who need these vehicles to make a living but Doctors and lawyers and other professionals discovered that this was a great way to get a huge tax deduction. This, of course, caused SUVs to become more luxurious and expensive which made them even more popular. Additionally, often the only way to get a powerful RWD based V8 powered vehicle for the family was to buy an SUV. And guess what ? We really do want that.

My conclusion: SUVs became hugely popular mainly because government regulation led to cars that sucked and cars that sucked led to an SUV/truck boom.

[ellives]

Exactly my point. And now that gas is close to 3 bucks a gallon, the market has turned away from these big vehicles. For those old timers here, isn't this scenario the EXACTLY the same thing that happened in 1973? Gas prices shot through the room which then turned all of the domestics buys of big automobiles over Toyotas and Datsuns because they had the best fuel economy?

This is the sad aspect of GM and Ford's current situation. Something turned car buyers over to Honda and Toyota along the way. It started with gas prices... then turned to quality... now turns back to gas prices. It's tough to see what will motivate buyers to go back to GM and Ford other than innovative design. Chrysler clearly has the lead there and certainly GM and Ford have no past history of strength in this area.

More than any other nation in the world the US is a country on wheels. We have the best and most extensive roadway system and use it to its capacity. We travel all the time for business and pleasure. Our economy is based upon this reality (right or wrong). Even the make-up of our towns and businesses, shopping malls and government installations and most completely, our suburbs Rely on the automobile. These parameters are deeply entrenched and unique in the world. We have no other way to function as a society. We have no effective national public transit system. We have a high standard of living and love our vacations and leisure activities.  Think about these points and then try to put the SUV into context.

Yes, CAFE changed things dramatically in favor of the SUV craze. When SUVs and trucks really made inroads into the former client base of station wagons and large cars the cars were so heavily impacted by CAFE and other regulations that they simply couldn't do the job any longer. We still wanted to tow our boats, and trailers and a Taurus wagon was never gonna cut it. Then the more financially saavy among us discovered that SUVs fit into the over 8600# truck category for tax write -offs. This accellerated depreciation was intended to benefit those who need these vehicles to make a living but Doctors and lawyers and other professionals discovered that this was a great way to get a huge tax deduction. This, of course, caused SUVs to become more luxurious and expensive which made them even more popular. Additionally, often the only way to get a powerful RWD based V8 powered vehicle for the family was to buy an SUV. And guess what ?  We really do want that.

My conclusion: SUVs became hugely popular mainly because government regulation led to cars that sucked and cars that sucked led to an SUV/truck boom.

[Hudson]

By in large, I agree, I would probably NOT buy an SUV this big, BUT:

That's NOT GM's problem, now is it? And apparently TOYOTA and Nissan don't think it's THEIR problem either.

People BUY what they want... GM BUILDS what people want. WHY in God's name should GM be ATTACKED for effectively doing business?!?!?!?

You've missed the point. CAFE is the WRONG way to go about increasing the fuel efficiency of our vehicles and definitely the wrong way to get people use less petroleum. Buyers don't "need" so many large SUV but the government has made them more desireable so GM will build them...CAFE or no CAFE. It's just good business practice and it only SEEMS that GM's being "attacked." This is one of those areas where they will continue to make lemonade from the lemons. Fewer big SUVs will garner larger prices and larger profit margins. Don't worry about GM. And this might keep some competitors AWAY from this market even longer...further benefitting GM.

What happened when supposedly enviro-friendly Subaru classified their Outback as a truck, then produced ANOTHER SUV?!?!?!?! NOTHING.

I don't understand your point. Subaru 4wd wagons have been classified as "multipurpose vehicles" (technically "trucks") for decades. And Subaru's "SUVs" (the Forester and the Tribeca) are tiny and fuel efficient compared to GM's BOF trucks.

What happened when Toyota introduced the new Tundra and FJ Cruiser, the BIGGEST light duty truck to roll on american roads and it's 5TH SUV? NOTHING!

Again, I don't get your point. The FJ Cruiser isn't "the BIGGEST light duty truck to roll on american roadsl," not by a long shot. And, yes, Toyota has five SUVs....two of which get over 30mpg on the highway and a hybrid potentially does considerably better than that. It's not about SUVs...it's about inefficient SUVs.

What happened when Honda started producing their "truck" that couldn't get better fuel economy than a V8 Avalanche? IT GOT KUDOS!!!....BTW, according to the EPA the Toyota Land Cruiser gets 14 MPG which is about the same boat as a 13 MPG Hummer H2.... WHY is there NOT the same negative sentiment associated with the precious Toyota?!?!?!?!

EPA estimates and real world are two different things. Check into it. The last H2 I had got 11 mpg on the HIGHWAY under normal, underloaded conditions. The last Land Cruiser I had did considerably better (still not "great").

What happened when Nissan BLACKMAILED the government into giving it CAFE exemptions by saying it would be forced to move Sentra production???? NOTHING!!!!

Are you talking about the 2-door Pathfinder issue? Yeah...that was stupid ON THE GOVERNMENT'S PART. So a 2-door SUV is a "truck" but a 4-door SUV is a car? So an imported 2-door SUV gets a 25% tariff but the 4-door version can be imported with a 2.5% tariff? Makes sense to me.

These examples PROVE that articles like this (Although I thought it wasn't that bad) are nothing more than either outdated rhetoric OR a smear campaign.

See whatever conspiracy theory you want to believe, but I see it as automotive journalists who just don't dig far enough. Toyota and Honda have been able to live with regulatory changes and GM makes a stink about everyone....knowing full well that they'll be able to meet the new standards but GM fans will get behind them and argue that the government (and the media) is out to get them. I think GM's PR campaign has backfired which has caused their drop in market share. Had they just played along like Honda and Toyota have done and improved their vehicles (like they've already done), they'd be in a better place today.

Just another example of how the automotive media (and automotive journalism) is become more and more coarse and untruthful.

What we really is a handful of journalists that can review cars with a honest, unbiased point of view, write it and get it published, and deny all bribes from automotive companies.

Sadly, money talks and it talked the media into becoming a mass of idiots dry-humping the Toyota logo. Such a pity...

I don't agree. I just think it's (as said above) automotive journalists just not doing enough research. Automotive writers are poorly paid and this could be contributing to their lack of research, but whatever the cause, they don't look past the surface...much like many people on this site. If you believe the first thing that comes across your desk or computer...or you have a preconcieved notion of how things work...you'll miss the bigger picture. Ask questions...do research...don't believe everything automatically. Journalists are not paid by Toyota or Honda to bash GM...and good reviews of GM vehicles don't get the coverage on this (and related) site like bad reviews do.