Huh? are you high? where did ambulances appear from in this thread? I suggest you put your bong down for a while and come down to planet earth.

 

Here is a third view. My personal perspective.

All large vehicles that are rarely if never used (over their life with that owner) in ways that are not easily accommodated by by a more eco-friendly vehicle, or whose primary reason for use is for the purpose of safety (real or perceived) of the owner with no regards for the added threat to the safety to all others sharing the road are evil. Large vehicles that are used more than infrequently where smaller vehicles would be inappropriate are not evil at all.

I have no use for, nor any desire to own an SUV or large truck, and would love to see most of them disappear from our world, but have no problem with appropriate use of those vehicles (heavy hauling or towing, off-road sporting, getting through deep snows or rough terrain, etc.). I believe that just getting rid of the vanity only use of large SUVs and trucks would eliminate the majority of them from the roads, and make the roads more eco-friendly and safe and enjoyable for most drivers.

-- Alan

 

I'm in full agreement with everything you wrote. I think that the natural progression of fuel prices from $3-ish to $10-ish per gallon will accomplish exactly what you wrote in the last sentence. I'd plan on $10 / gal fuel by 2015-20 and thus few if any large SUVs on the road at all.

 

In a certain way I almost see CUVs as being "most evil".

They still have negative characteristics of "real" SUVs: Excess weight, too tall (rollover, poor aerodynamics), poor handling and of course poor fuel economy.

Yet they also have none of the "utility" of a SUV. Towing capability, off-road capability.

Kinda like "lower fat" potato chips. None of the taste, and still aren't healthy...

 

How much can you tow with your HCH or Prius? How about a 4000 lb sailboat? Or haul 2 adults and 4 kids? Why arent you all driving Insites? The market will determine the vehicals sold. $5.00 gal fuel will sell more high FE vehicals than any whining ever will. I personally dont think the Tahoe Hybrid will be successful because people who buy Tahoes arent that concerned with FE and they will argue the classic "wont pay for itself". I love my FEH and it suits my needs, but I only get 30 mpg thats 20 mpg off a Prius. So am I sinning against mankind?

 

In the beginning.....

Well when hybrids were first being considered by the bulk of the population in late 03 and all of 04 that argument that 'they won't pay for themselves' was rampant and possibly true depending on a lot of variables, distance driven, which hybrid, etc. Now since Katrina and the loss of our cushion in procesing facilities and the recognition recently that oil is very very close to being 'in shortage' and the fall in the value of the dollar which is driving our price of oil up that whole argument is out the window.

With or without a tax credit ALL hybrids are currently at least at breakeven with their ICE counterparts for 5 yrs, ahead money at 7 yrs and way ahead money at 10 yrs. This assumes a very modest increase in fuel prices of $0.50/gal annually.

 

Come on! Most people who buy luxury SUVs do so because of status or personal insecurity, not becaue they need to transport people or haul things. With that in consideration, a hybrid 2-mode SUV will probably do even BETTER than spec because it will have a huge battery reserve pushing around a usually-empty cargo area.

 

I disagree. CUVs are basically station wagons. But the term "station wagon" has negative connotations. CUVs are decent grocery-getters with non-terribe FE.