A very basic reason why SUVs are so popular: people who are not small fit into them

The topic of SUVs is in a cloud of emotional argumentation. Their
drivers are regarded
as people who want to be something like modern cowboys who do not mind
much to
pollute, kill children etc. .
I found a much simpler explanation. I am about 1m86 tall (this might
be slightly above average
but not much) and consequently need about 93cms space above the seat.
The standard pattern
of looking for a car that fits my other requirements like moderate
price goes like this. I explain
the "size problem" to the dealer, he smiles mentions their height
adjustable seats, we go
check and confirm that the height adjustment means optional height
increase and not decrease
compared to the standard seat.
At the moment I am driving a VOLVO (Nedcar) 440. This car will be
banned from our town in Germany
for a ridiculous reason: the engine control unit is not optimized
while the engine is warming up.
The probable real reason is that lobbyists / politicians want me to
buy a new car. So this story is going to be repeated.
Meanwhile Volvo joined Fords, a new version of a VOLVO I rented was
standard sized vertically. So the
search is to start anew. Toyota confirmed that I will not fit into the
Prius comfortably and mentioned Lexus cars.
Rental car wise only a Mercedes E type was good for my size. Since I
do not drive much I hesitate to spend that
much.

The only idea I (someone with strong feelings about the
environment) have at the moment
is to look for a used SUV just not too old to have the same political
problem as my present car.
A new one would be a waste of money, since it would be foolish not to
expect more regulations of the type of the one that bans the clean and
economic Volvo 440.

SUV drivers many of you are just reasonable people who like to sit
upright!

wrote:
> Meanwhile Volvo joined Fords, a new version of a VOLVO I rented was
> standard sized vertically. So the
> search is to start anew. Toyota confirmed that I will not fit into the
> Prius comfortably and mentioned Lexus cars.
> Rental car wise only a Mercedes E type was good for my size. Since I
> do not drive much I hesitate to spend that
> much.

Go buy a Citroën Berlingo and be done with it.

I could wear a top hat in it without problems.

OTOH, I'm your size and sit comfortably in my Prius, as well as in my
wife's Impreza. The Miata is a bit on the small side, but with the top
down head room's just about infinite.

> SUV drivers many of you are just reasonable people who like to sit
> upright!

Or they may just be looking for silly excuses to buy SUV's. ;-)

cu
.\\arc

I have a 2004 Nissan Altima and find the interior to be larger and
roomier than most SUVs, particularly those damned Hummers, which are big
and imposing on the outside and small and cramped on the inside.



John

--


Von Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen. --Beethoven

> Or they may just be looking for silly excuses to buy SUV's. ;-)

Why is it "silly" for someone to buy a legal product? Why does anyone
need an "excuse" for buying a legal product?

Larry Bud > wrote:
>> Or they may just be looking for silly excuses to buy SUV's. ;-)
>
> Why is it "silly" for someone to buy a legal product? Why does anyone
> need an "excuse" for buying a legal product?


To some people it may seem silly to spend a bunch of money on a product
whose specific utility they do not need. In order to rationalize their
purchase they look for arguments justifying it.

Others consider it a lifestyle decision and don't spend another thought.

Those of us who select their transportation for rational reasons shake
their heads and buy either cars - if we want to drive - or vans/trucks - if
we need to haul things.

cu
.\\arc

Marc Gerges wrote:
> To some people it may seem silly to spend a bunch of money on a product
> whose specific utility they do not need. In order to rationalize their
> purchase they look for arguments justifying it.

Nobody spends thousands of dollars that thoughtlessly unless he has millions.

John David Galt > wrote:
> Marc Gerges wrote:
>> To some people it may seem silly to spend a bunch of money on a product
>> whose specific utility they do not need. In order to rationalize their
>> purchase they look for arguments justifying it.
>
> Nobody spends thousands of dollars that thoughtlessly unless he has millions.


Sales of these things in many places seem to counter your assumption.

Let's take the place where I live - peaceful little country right in the
middle of Europe. Lot's of SUV's being, sold, the upper part of the
market is for the Porsches, Mercedes and Range Rovers. Then there's
X5's, Touareg, and 'low end' Hyundais, RAV4s etc.

Some winters here require a set of snow tires on a 2WD car to get
through them. Most don't.

Most people - even rich people - don't have enough ground they'd need an
off road vehicle to navigate it. On public ground off road cars are not
allowed in order to protect nature. Consequently these cars do not drive
off road. Ever. The most exiting bit would be to park in such a way that
two wheels touch the grass.

Sales and registrations of high load trailers don't match SUV sales. Not
many people seem to have a need to tow heavy stuff - no wonder, heavy
towable stuff is often cars on a car trailer, horses, or things like
boats or caravans. Not many people have those, and many of those that
have them do not seem to transport them on a regular basis.

Many people are single, large families are mostly extinct. The average
number of children for a woman is less than one and a half. People don't
need people carriers any more.

So we got winter capabilities, off roading, towing, space... what other
inherent advantages does this type of car have? Asking genuinely, I've
never driven one far enough to notice any.

I do believe in free markets and everybodys own right to make a fool of
himself, but overall I think we'd be better off limiting those things.
They are dangerous, consume space (especially in cities) and resources,
and on the open road they are hindering the flow of traffic.

Plus I'm one of these nasty socialists who believes that you should
behave well. Part of that is not to consume resources that you don't
need, and not to put more burden on your community than necessary.

cu
.\\arc

Marc Gerges wrote:
> John David Galt > wrote:
>> Marc Gerges wrote:
>>> To some people it may seem silly to spend a bunch of money on a product
>>> whose specific utility they do not need. In order to rationalize their
>>> purchase they look for arguments justifying it.
>> Nobody spends thousands of dollars that thoughtlessly unless he has millions.
>
>
> Sales of these things in many places seem to counter your assumption.

Not at all. They counter YOUR assumption (that the buyers don't intend to
use the capabilities an SUV has that most other cars don't).

Remember, capacity for more passengers/cargo is not an SUV's only advantage.
They also tend to be more comfortable (head- and leg-room for the driver)
and have safety advantages (more mass and a longer sight distance due to
height). Any of these is a perfectly valid reason to buy one, even if you
don't share the preference for them.

Bottom line: it's the buyer's decision how to spend his money.

John David Galt > wrote in
:

> Marc Gerges wrote:
>> John David Galt > wrote:
>>> Marc Gerges wrote:
>>>> To some people it may seem silly to spend a bunch of money on a
>>>> product whose specific utility they do not need. In order to
>>>> rationalize their purchase they look for arguments justifying it.
>>> Nobody spends thousands of dollars that thoughtlessly unless he has
>>> millions.
>>
>>
>> Sales of these things in many places seem to counter your assumption.
>
> Not at all. They counter YOUR assumption (that the buyers don't
> intend to use the capabilities an SUV has that most other cars don't).
>
> Remember, capacity for more passengers/cargo is not an SUV's only
> advantage. They also tend to be more comfortable (head- and leg-room
> for the driver) and have safety advantages (more mass and a longer
> sight distance due to height). Any of these is a perfectly valid
> reason to buy one, even if you don't share the preference for them.
>
> Bottom line: it's the buyer's decision how to spend his money.
>

those safety "advantages" are outweighed by their lesser
maneuverability,tendency to roll over or lose control,and greater
difficulty in parking. Not to mention lousy gas mileage.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

John David Galt > wrote:
>
> Remember, capacity for more passengers/cargo is not an SUV's only advantage.
> They also tend to be more comfortable (head- and leg-room for the driver)

My first impression on those that I sat in and that I drove is
different. Space seems not considerably more abundant than in a regular
car - you sit a bit more upright.

If you wanted space, an SUV seems like a bad choice to me.

> and have safety advantages (more mass and a longer sight distance due to
> height).

More mass does not equal more safety. The first bit about safety is not
drive someplace where somebody else is already. Which means changing the
course. That works better with less mass.

And the bit about the sight distance is true unless everybody else
manoeuvers their SUV into one's line of sight.

> Any of these is a perfectly valid reason to buy one, even if you
> don't share the preference for them.

I disagree.

> Bottom line: it's the buyer's decision how to spend his money.

Yep. And, he doesn't need smart or valid reasons.

cu
.\\arc