Hudson

I assumed I covered this territory in my last post, until I reread it. 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. This adds fuel to my argument about raising gas prices. And you're right that SUVs should not be exempt from "gas guzzler" taxes.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Good luck to ya, Homeowner!

Who's living in the three-bedroom place at the end of your driveway. The green house is quite nice!

Yeah....what he said.

But what about the Gremlin 5 Litre?

Neon: I've always been a fan of the Avanti. One day, I'll own an Avanti or two. I'm holding out for an Avanti Touring Sedan.

There needs to be a method to this?The Hornet offered the sportiest body in 1977...the Concord followed in 1978...and the Spirit after that. I like the Concord AMX since it was a one-year bodystyle and featured distinct items such as round headlights (Concords had rectangular headlamps) and front fascia. The Spirit is much less rare but it adds lightness and available V8 power. Gotta love the little guys!

Can't say I have the collection or AMC past that you do. I have an interest in minor companies with AMC being one of the larger ones. I have a particular affinity towards oddballs like the Pacer wagon, the Spirit AMX, the Concord AMX, and the Griffith Eagle. And of course there were the Marlins and Rebels and Ambassadors along the way. I had a neighbor when I was young who was an AMC dealer and he'd give me old dealership things like display books showing interior colors and materials. And his son, to this day, has a pristine early AMX (flat black on orange). Gotta love that.

I'd tell you but I'm trying to keep some sense of anonimity around here. Pat Foster (an acquaintence of mine) is THE AMC guy. His knowledge on the subject is without peer, as far as I've seen.I'll read your article as soon as I get a chance...I like AMCs, especially the AMXs and Pacers.

Collectible Automobile is an excellent magazine. Even with that said, they've published two articles I authored.

The RAV4 has ALWAYS been a truck, as are all SUVs. The PT Cruiser and Dodge Magnum are "trucks" but I'll question those. Other car-based trucks include the Ford Escape/Mercury Mariner/Mazda Tribute, the Thetas (as mentioned above), Toyota Highlander, Lexus RX330/400h, Mitsubishi Outlander, Nissan Murano, and every minivan on the market today.

BMW's been working on hydrogen-powered cars for atleast 25 years. But Mazda actually SOLD one this year.

#1 looks similar to an Astra X300 GT kit car (but there are subtle differences), #2 is the Cheetah, #3 is a 1960 LaDawri kit, #4 is the Tucker concept, and #5 is a Woodill Wildfire (the first production car with a fiberglass body).

Hummer HX has been replaced (in the plan) by the H4.

Buick was making cars in Canada (Oshawa to be exact) well before that.

Forget the height thing. If you're lucky enough for there to be sparks between the two of you, who gives two s's about height? I've known relationships to work out with the guy shorter than the girl and the guy younger than the girl...doesnt' matter. Age and height and skin color and religion and politics should be overlooked when it comes to finding a potential mate. I've dealt with each of these factors; some are more difficult to overcome than others, but each should be irrelevant if there's chemistry. XP715 had an excellent point...take it one step at a time. Height should be the LEAST of your problems at this point. If you're too self-conscious to date someone taller than you, that might be something you'll have to deal with first. Tall women, from my experiences, understand that they're tall and will have to deal with a potential date or mate who's shorter than them...I don't see HER being the problem here. Good luck to you.

I'm not advocating "3rd trimester abortions," but there are people on this earth that make me think that 83rd or 123rd or 163rd trimester abortions should be legalized.

While that may be true in this case, how often do self-described Conservatives treat the term "liberal" as "wrong" or "radical" or "loose?" The door swings both ways.

Sweet!

Actually, Terraplane was a Hudson...but Hudson's weren't necessarily Terraplanes.

It's not new for Pontiac either. Remember when the J2000 became the 2000 which became the 2000 Sunbird?