Also SUVs are not in the same category emissions regulations wise as cars, and manufacturers will put the least amount of emission control on vehicles with little regulation so they end up spewing more pollution per amount of fuel burned as compared to a car burning the same amount of fuel (and most burn less anyways). That may change soon (hopefully) and places like California have adopted, or are adopting some of their own regulations targeting SUVs.

 

Good point - they are under the radar - sometimes literally.

To the Suburban driver: I have no problem with you using it as it was intended. If you are carrying eight passengers and getting 15mpg, my Insight would have to get 135mpg to match you. I think you probably get better than 15mpg....

 

What are you talking about Mr S2000 driver? My Vette gets better mileage than half the types of vehicles in the database, including your S2000.

Part of the problem is that huge SUVs like the Suburban are given huge tax breaks for businesses so people are actually encouraged to be driving around in some huge hulking vehicle even if they ride alone most of the time. Sports cars have less room for extra people and stuff so they don't seem nearly as wasteful when only they are occupied by the driver alone.

There is something in the tax code that allows for you to completely depreciate a truck used for business in just a couple of years if it is large enough.

Get rid of all the silly SUVs that people don't need first and I'll think about giving up my Vette.

 

It's not just the commuter SUV drivers, but many of them look like they are very relaxed in the drivers seat like they are in the recliner holding the steering wheel like a remote. That's what infuriates me.

Again, I have no problems with anyone using an SUV as it was intended....

 

According to the EPA Green Vehicle Guide (http://www.epa.gov/autoemissions/index.htm), my Honda Pilot has an Air Polution rating of 6 of 10, and a Greenhouse Gas score of 4 of 10 (10 is best), and gets 17-22 MPG. Other cars with similar ratings:

Car/Air Polution/Greenhouse/MPG

Mazda RX-8 / 6 / 4 / 18-24
Ford Mustang / 6 / 4 / 18-23
Subaru Impreza / 2 / 4 / 18-24
BMW M3 / 2 / 4 / 16-24
Infiniti G35 / 6 / 4 / 17-24
Cadillac Deville / 3 / 4 / 17-24

Pick any Mercedes, Porsche, BMW, etc. and it's worse. However, I doubt a BanBMW.com site would generate much interest.

Now I won't come to the defense of rediculously oversized grocery-getters, but SUVs have a purpose and a place, and should not be targeted by such a general statement that "All SUVs by definition are bad". The problem is not SUVs, but the characteristic that a good percentage of SUVs (and many other vehicles) have - poor to marginal gas mileage and emissions. If you're going to be concerned about the environment, then concern yourself with what's going into it from all vehicles. Don't just single out a particular type and make it the scape-goat for all our polution problems. There are as many pickup trucks as SUVs. There are many regular cars with equal or worse emissions. Also, not all SUVs are created equal. Some (like the forementioned MDX) do better than most. This site may be well intended, but narrow minded and short on an equal presentation of the facts.

The only bumper sticker I want on my Pilot is "my other car is a hybrid - bug off".

 

Actually I sold my S2000 already, but my point is still that sports cars are no more practical than an SUV. Neither a Corvette nor an S2000 can hold even 3 people, much less the 5-8 or so you can fit in some SUV's, plus they have tiny trunks and don't have off-roading capabilities like most SUV's.

As for tax breaks, that's nothing that singles out SUV's. It's simply one of those things where the more it costs, the greater your tax benefit is. Like any other tax deduction, the more you pay, the more you deduct. It's a lot like saying that if you save 10% on a $50k car, you saved twice as much as someone who saved 10% on a $25k car. While technically accurate, it's still highly misleading.

Bottom line is still that SUV's are much more practical than sports cars. If we're going based on the utility and usefulness of vehicles, SUV's have a far stronger social case to exist than sports cars, sad as that may be for us enthusiasts.

 

Actually this is another way of looking at my original point. The fact that sports cars are smaller makes them seem less wasteful. I'm single so why would I need a car that can hold 5-8 people anyway? I agree that both sports cars and SUVs are wasteful but in the Corvette's case not so much.This is totally false, you need to read up on your tax laws. If a truck is over 6000 lbs a business can write it off on an accelerated schedule, like half in the first year.

http://www.detnews.com/2002/autosins.../c01-38875.htm

 

.....could be showing my age, but BMW was that dirty three-letter word in the 1980's. SUV is the new dirty three-letter word.

The common demoninator is the BMW, then the SUV had(or have) a lot of bad actors that give the vehicle a bad name. Both have people that conspiciously drive bad or recklessly and appear to flaunt wealth in a status symbol vehicle.

Yes, I'm making a generalization because there are a lot of people that drive BMWs and SUVs in a responsible manner - probably they are in the majority. It's just the bad actors that really stick out.

To the comment that pickups don't get the stigma of the SUVs - I see no difference in the huge pickup trucks. The most common vehicle that attempts to blast by me is F250s, Dodge Rams, other oversized pickup trucks.

 

Check out this article - I'm not suprized. Not saying it's everyone...

 

most pickups in my area are owned/driven by some lawncare company or another. I do see the occasional f-350 superduty with the 10 in. lift or 24" wheels (which you know thats not getting used for anything), but for the most part it seems people use their pickups wisely around here.